The Madras High Court on Monday, March 18, 2024, refused to interfere with the punishment of removal from service, imposed upon an Additional District Judge for having participated in a conference call with Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati when the latter had been arrayed as the prime accused person in the Sankararaman murder case.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar dismissed a writ petition filed by the former judge, A. Rajasekaran in 2023, challenging the punishment imposed on him on November 7, 2022. They said the punishment could not be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges.
“We are of the opinion that the judicial officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity. In the present case... the proved charges are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the judicial officer... Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment,” the Division Bench wrote.
In so far as compliance of the principle of natural justice was concerned the Bench said, it had been followed scrupulously by the disciplinary authority. A preliminary enquiry was conducted to ascertain the truth with the assistance of forensic science experts, and the charges had been framed only after finding prima facie material.
The delinquent officials (including the present writ petitioner and a Section Officer in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court N. Ramesh Kumar) had submitted their explanations and participated in the departmental inquiry. They were also permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and peruse the records.
The inquiry report was also served on the delinquent officials seeking their further objections on the findings. The explanations submitted by them thereafter were taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority before the final decision to remove the petitioner from service was taken, the Bench pointed out..
“The case of the petitioner was considered at all levels, including the high level administrative committee of the High Court. Thus, this court does not find any infirmity in respect of the procedures followed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings,” the Bench concluded.
The judges also highlighted that the issue came to light only after advocate S. Doraisamy lodged a complaint with the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court in 2011 along with a recording of the telephone conversation.
