CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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