Dismissal of magistrate on charge of helping accused upheld
High Court rejects his plea for reinstatement
27/08/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, CHENNAI
The Madras High Court has on its judicial side confirmed an order passed by it on the administrative side dismissing from service Judicial Magistrate K.V. Mahendra Boopathi, who was in the eye of the storm in 2016 after the court smelled a rat in the way he was handling the multi-crore illegal granite mining cases in Madurai district.
Justices R. Subbiah and C. Saravanan dismissed a writ petition filed by him challenging a Government Order issued last year dismissing him from service on the basis of a recommendation made by the High Court. They consequently rejected his plea for reinstatement in service with all attendant benefits, including seniority and promotion.
Though Mr. Boopathi had come to the adverse notice of the High Court due to the granite mining cases, he got dismissed from service on two other charges. The first charge was that he abused an advocate on phone in an inebriated mood in March 2016 and the second was that he made a phone call to an accused in a criminal case pending before him.
The Division Bench, led by Justice Subbiah, agreed with advocate M. Santhanaraman, representing the High Court, that it could not exercise powers under Articles 226 (to issue writs) to re-appreciate the material evidence available on record against the petitioner and take a view different from what had been taken by the disciplinary authority.
High Court rejects his plea for reinstatement
27/08/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, CHENNAI
The Madras High Court has on its judicial side confirmed an order passed by it on the administrative side dismissing from service Judicial Magistrate K.V. Mahendra Boopathi, who was in the eye of the storm in 2016 after the court smelled a rat in the way he was handling the multi-crore illegal granite mining cases in Madurai district.
Justices R. Subbiah and C. Saravanan dismissed a writ petition filed by him challenging a Government Order issued last year dismissing him from service on the basis of a recommendation made by the High Court. They consequently rejected his plea for reinstatement in service with all attendant benefits, including seniority and promotion.
Though Mr. Boopathi had come to the adverse notice of the High Court due to the granite mining cases, he got dismissed from service on two other charges. The first charge was that he abused an advocate on phone in an inebriated mood in March 2016 and the second was that he made a phone call to an accused in a criminal case pending before him.
The Division Bench, led by Justice Subbiah, agreed with advocate M. Santhanaraman, representing the High Court, that it could not exercise powers under Articles 226 (to issue writs) to re-appreciate the material evidence available on record against the petitioner and take a view different from what had been taken by the disciplinary authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment