CHENNAI: Holding that an independent and honest judiciary is imperative for the rule of law, the Madras High Court has set aside the dismissal of a judicial magistrate from service on the day of his retirement.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice K. Suguna, allowing the writ petition of D. Amaladoss, said if the High Court encouraged anonymous complaints, no judicial officer would feel secure. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the Bench said an honest and strict judicial officer was likely to have adversaries.

"Trifling matters"

If complaints were entertained on "trifling matters," it would be difficult for judicial officers to discharge their duties in an honest and independent manner.

Mr. Amaladoss was serving as Judicial Magistrate-I at Dharmapuri when a complaint was lodged against him in the High Court by R. Muthusamy.

The complaint, alleging corruption and misconduct, was received by the High Court's vigilance cell in December 1991. According to the complainant, the Magistrate demanded a bribe and also granted bail on a holiday for monetary considerations. After procedural formalities, the Full Court of the High Court recommended his dismissal from service in August 1999. The State Government passed the order the next month accepting the recommendation. His dismissal order was communicated to him on September 30, 1999, the day he was to be superannuated. Quashing the Government Order, the Bench said: "We are satisfied that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had granted bail for extraneous considerations... We find that the petitioner has not abused or misused his judicial powers while granting bail on a holiday exercising his discretionary powers in the interest of the parties."

The judges said: "We are of the view that the High Court should not have initiated the inquiry proceedings at all. We, therefore, set aside the inquiry proceedings as well as the punishment imposed on him."

The Bench pointed out that except for the complaint, there were no other complaints against the Magistrate "during his whole service as judicial officer."

"Inconsistencies"

It also pointed out the "inconsistencies and contradictions" in the version of the complainants with regard to the place and time of the bribe demand. Two main witnesses were involved in criminal cases. "We have to see the conduct of the parties before the initiation of departmental inquiry and, thereafter, imposition of punishment on a judicial officer... "

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail