Sankararaman Murder Case | Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Punishment Imposed On District Judge Who Held Conference Call With Accused

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that a Judicial Officer was expected to maintain a high level of integrity and in the present case, the charges against the Judicial officer were proved. The court added that the charges were grave and touched upon the integrity and honesty of a Judicial officer. Thus, the court held that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate.

"We are of the opinion that the Judicial Officers are expected to maintain high level of integrity and in the present case, the charge Nos.1 and 4 against the writ petitioner, were held proved. The proved charges, viz., charge Nos.1 and 4 are grave in nature, touching upon the integrity and honesty of the Judicial Officer. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service, cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment," the court observed.

The allegation against the District Judge, Rajasekaran, was that he was involved in a telephonic conference call with Mr. Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Mutt, Mr T.Ramasamy, the then Sessions Judge, Puducherry and Ms B.Gowri Kamatchi discussing monetary payments in connection with the Sanraraman murder case. Based on complaints by two advocates, the High Court had called for a vigilance enquiry, following which the charge against the Sessions Judge was dropped noting that the voice in the recorded call did not match.

Rajasekaran was placed under suspension and not permitted to retire from service on the date of his superannuation. After due enquiry, the Full Court of the High Court approved the decision of the Administrative Committee to impose punishment and addressed the Government. The Government, being the appointing authority, issued the Government Order removing Rajasekaran from service. This GO was challenged in the present petition.

It was argued that the departmental enquiries were incorrect. It was also alleged that the original recording devices were not examined which vitiated the charge and the same had to be considered during the departmental enquiry.

The court, however, noted that the probabilities clearly showed the complexity of the delinquents with the crime and that itself was sufficient to prove the charges in a departmental enquiry. Noting that the standard of proof in departmental enquiry was different from that in criminal trial, the court added that strict proof was not necessary for punishing a public servant. The court also noted that even a moral turpitude of acts unbecoming of a public servant were misconducts warranting punishment under the Discipline and service rules.

“High standard of proof is essential to convict an accused in a criminal trial. However, no such strict proof is required for punishing a public servant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The preponderance of probabilities are sufficient to punish an employee. Therefore examination and deposition of witnesses in the context of the Evidence Act, would not arise at all in departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even the moral turpitude or acting unbecoming of a public servant are misconducts warranting punishment under the Discipline and Appeal Rules,” the court said.

The court also observed that the rules of natural justice were also followed scrupulously. The court added that the decision was taken and the resolution was approved by the Full Court of the High Court.

Thus, finding no infirmity in the procedures, the court was not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Palanivel

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms M.Jayanthy, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Durai Eswar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121

Case Title: A Rajasekaran v State

Case No: WP No.1162 of 2023