Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Disciplinary Proceedings | Judicial Officer’s Integrity Non-Negotiable – High Court Upholds Removal of Judicial Officer Having Telephonic Conversation With Murder Accused

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Madras High Court has reaffirmed the imperative need for integrity and honesty in the judiciary, holding that the lack thereof in a judicial officer is grounds for removal from service. This decision emphasizes the critical nature of a judge’s role in upholding the principles of justice and the grave implications of any breach of ethical conduct.

A.Rajasekaran, a former Judicial Officer, was implicated in a telephonic conversation regarding financial transactions linked to a criminal case, resulting in his suspension and subsequent removal from service. The key issues revolved around the authenticity of the evidence (voice recordings) and the appropriateness of the quantum of punishment (removal from service) given the charges proven against Rajasekaran.

The Court meticulously assessed the evidence, including the analysis of voice samples and Forensic Science reports, validating the authenticity of the recordings implicating Rajasekaran. The judgment meticulously details the Court’s rationale, particularly emphasizing the criticality of circumstantial and corroborative evidence in disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam observed, “The preponderance of probabilities are established beyond any pale of doubt... the voice samples have been identified and admitted by the parties.” This affirmation underscores the Court’s reliance on the totality of evidence, despite the absence of the original recording devices.

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by A.Rajasekaran, upholding the decision of his removal from service. The judgment asserts that the charges proven against him – related to his integrity and honesty – are of such a serious nature that they justify the quantum of punishment imposed. The Court also confirmed that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the principles of natural justice at every stage.

Date of Decision: 18th March 2024

Rajasekaran vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Latest Legal News