Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

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