Madras High Court
N.Packialakshmi vs The Judicial Magistrate on 16 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.9050 of 2020
N.Packialakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned
order of punishment passed by the first respondent in No.1/19
dated 17.06.2019 as conformed & modified by the second
respondent in his proceedings in Appeal No.01/2019 dated
16.03.2020 and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
For Petitioner : M.R.V.Rajkumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
ORDER
************
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is
taken up for final disposal.
2.Heard Mr.R.V.Rajkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned Counsel appearing
for the respondents.
3.This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of
punishment passed by the first respondent dated 17.06.2019, as
modified by the second respondent in his proceedings in Appeal
No.01/2019 dated 16.03.2020.
4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has elaborately set
out as to what was the allegation against the petitioner and
submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not give
sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and without any
corroborative evidence after verification of the hearing book on
16.06.2019, punishment was imposed on 17.06.2019. Further, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
submitted that though maintaining a hearing book is the duty of the
Grade III Bench Clerk, with regard to the mode of maintaining the
entry in the book, every Court / Judge has adopted their own
method. Hence, the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate that
there is two tick marks one at the time of calling of the case and
another at the time of adjournment and further the last hearing
date should be on left side, but the same was not available is
unsustainable, as no such practice was followed during the tenure
of the petitioner and even before she joined duty, no such practice
was followed in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakottai. Further,
no instructions were given as alleged in the punishment order.
5.The learned Counsel further submitted that the Judicial
Magistrate who imposed the punishment completely overlooked the
admitted factual position that all the cases posted for hearing were
fed into the CIS system everyday and the cause list of day to day
posting of the cases are taken from the CIS version by taking
printout with stage of the case and as assuming there is any
mistake by oversight, there is no possibility of affecting the
proceedings. Further, the learned Counsel has taken us through the
hearing book details and demonstrated as to how entries have been
made on the next adjourned date and that the proceedings are
perverse.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
6.Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the petitioner joined as Grade III Bench Clerk on 16.09.2017
and on the crucial date of seniority and preparation of panel for the
year 2019-2020 as on 01.07.2020, the petitioner's name was placed
at Sl.No.2 in the promotional panel. It is submitted that on
14.06.2019, the Judicial Magistrate got a notice that the petitioner
has not properly maintained the diary and hearing book and for
nearly 100 cases, the petitioner has got adjournments on the
reason that service was awaited. Further, on 14.06.2019, a memo
was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation for missing case
bundles in S.T.C.No.117 of 2019 and for not maintaining the diary
and hearing book properly and for not verifying the service of
Court notice for two years and got adjournment on the reason
services are awaited. The petitioner was granted 24 hours time for
submission of explanation.
7.Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the petitioner in her explanation, submitted that S.T.C.No.117 of
2019 was taken on file on 08.02.2019 and thereafter on
20.03.2019, the bundle was handed over to Record Clerk for
issuance of process and from 08.05.2019, the bundle is missing.
Further, the petitioner stated that she has been searching for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
case bundle and sought further time up to 30.06.2019. At that point
alone, explanation was accepted for the time being and time to
trace the bundle was granted till 30.06.2019, but the petitioner did
not trace the bundle. Therefore, charge proceedings were initiated
by the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai by proceedings dated
31.08.2020.
8.Further it is submitted that on 17.06.2019, the Judicial
Magistrate, Devakottai has passed an office order and cancelled
the annual increment sanctioned for the month of April 2018 for
not maintaining the diary properly and further it was ordered to
cancel the annual increment for April 2019, for not verifying the
Court notice and acknowledgement cards. Aggrieved, by the said
order, dated 17.06.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai. In the appeal, the order of
punishment was modified. It was found by the appellate authority
that cancelling an increment already granted is not a penalty under
Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955 and it is only withholding of increments to be granted
which will be a penalty. Therefore, a modification was made
ensuing two increments of the petitioner being withhold.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
9.After elaborately hearing the parties appearing on either
side and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find
that the order of punishment or the order of the appellate authority
cannot be termed to be perverse. The role of a Bench Clerk that
too in a Criminal Court is very vital. It is the bounden duty of the
Bench Clerk to ensure that cases are promptly entered in the
hearing book and service of notice is clearly monitored and in that
process, several unknown persons are likely to be affected because
the Court deals with criminal proceedings. The explanation was
considered by the authority, order of punishment has been passed
which was modified by the appellate authority to be in tune with
Rule 8 of the said Rules. Thus, in the absence of any perversity on
the part of the authorities, this Court is of the view that the order of
punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
10.For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and
dismissed. It is settled legal position that the scope of interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution on the factual findings
recorded by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the
appellate authority is very limited. Therefore, this Court cannot sit
in a judgment, over the decision of the disciplinary authority as if it
is a third appellate authority. However, there shall be no order as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
16.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
W.P.(MD)No.10169 of 2020
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
