Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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