"Faith, Trust and Confidence Eroded": High Court Upholds Dismissal of Civil Judge for "Manipulation of Records," "Truncated Proceedings," and "Violation of Judicial Integrity"
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered a judgment affirming the dismissal of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) from service following serious charges of record manipulation, dereliction of duty, and insubordination. The Bench, upon examination of the case materials and proceedings, upheld the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, observing that the conduct of the petitioner was prejudicial to court proceedings and public trust.
The petitioner, appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service on 15.09.2015, was serving as Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli. On 18.06.2021, a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 was issued against him. The charge framed stated that after taking cognizance of directions from the High Court to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.3376 of 2018 in D.V.C.No.107 of 2016 within two months, the petitioner failed to comply and engaged in manipulation of court records by ante-dating an order.
The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.07.2021, but the explanation was not satisfactory. Consequently, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry involved examination of P.W.1 to P.W.5, marking of Exs.P1 to P14, and defense documents D1 to D22. No witnesses were examined on the side of the delinquent.
The enquiry report dated 27.01.2022 found the charges proved. A second show-cause notice dated 06.04.2022 was issued, to which the petitioner responded on 27.05.2022. The matter was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court, which accepted the findings and recommended dismissal. The Full Court endorsed the recommendation on 08.08.2022, following which the Government issued G.O.(2D) No.8 Home (Courts-I) Department dated 06.01.2023, imposing the penalty of dismissal.
The petitioner, challenging the dismissal, contended that the delay occurred because the main bundle in D.V.C.No.107 of 2016 was missing, and once traced, the order was pronounced on 18.09.2019. He argued that the absence of entries in the A-diary did not conclusively prove non-pronouncement of the order. He further contended that reliance on preliminary enquiry findings was improper and the punishment was disproportionate.
The respondents maintained that the enquiry was conducted fairly, and the evidence, particularly relating to missing A-diary entries and the failure to report compliance under Section 20(4) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, supported the findings.
The Court recorded that "the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the delinquent makes it abundantly clear that the delinquent was aware of the directions issued by this Court" and that the delinquent "did not take any steps to comply with the directions issued" despite the expiry of the two-month time frame.
It further observed that "the delinquent, who had the knowledge of the directions of this Court and being aware that the time granted would expire on 13.06.2019, did not take any steps to comply with the directions issued" and "did not choose to avail" the opportunity to seek an extension of time.
Regarding the manipulation of records, the Bench observed, "the non-listing of the case on the hearing dates and the docket orders made on different dates without any corresponding entry in the A-diary shows that there were irregular and truncated court proceedings".
The Court stated, "the delinquent also failed to discharge his mandatory duty in ensuring the A-diary and the other court records are in order".
On the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court stated, "the fact that the delinquent has not chosen to put forth the best evidence available to support his case would only go to show that either no such order was typed in the laptop or the hard disk, if produced, would reveal that the order had been typed at a later date".
The Bench noted, "if the order in Ex.P.12 had been delivered on 18.09.2019 itself, which is in favour of the complainant, then absolutely there was no necessity for the complainant to prefer a complaint against the delinquent nearly after 8 months in May 2020".
Regarding the principles of judicial review, the Court observed, "Reappraisal of evidence is impermissible and this Court reviews only the manner in which the decision has been arrived at and not the decision itself".
On proportionality of punishment, the Court stated, "In view of such serious misconduct of the delinquent, the faith, trust and confidence of the public over the courts will be eroded and the rights of the litigant public will be greatly affected".
The Court observed: "the action and conduct of the delinquent prior to and post the complaint, ignoring the directions of this Court and further going to the extent of manipulating / antedating the order reflects his mind, which cannot be condoned and countenanced at least in Judicial service".
The Court concluded: In such circumstances, in our considered opinion the punishment of removal from service is definitely proportionate to the proved charges against the delinquent. We find no error or infirmity in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.
Confirming the dismissal, the Court ordered: "Accordingly, the impugned order is confirmed and this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Murali
For the Respondents: Mr. E. Chandrasekaran, Standing Counsel, Mr. S. John J. Raja Singh, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: R. Manivasagan vs The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:1082
Case Number: W.P.No.33564 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.36348 of 2024
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan
[Read/Download order]
