Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme 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