HC upholds dismissal of magistrate in Madurai district
He Had Abused Advocate In An Inebriated Condition
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:27.08.2019
The Madras high court has upheld the dismissal of a judicial magistrate from service on charges of having verbally abused an advocate in an inebriated condition.
Refusing to come to the aid of K V Mahendra Boopathi, who was sacked from service, a division bench of Justice R Subbiah and Justice C Saravanan said: “The petitioner, as a judicial officer, is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions and when the charges levelled and proved are related to his integrity in discharge of his duties, we are not in a position to appreciate the submission that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive.”
During the termination of service, Boopathi was serving as judicial magistrate in Melur, Madurai. There were two complaints against Boopathi — one for abusing an advocate over phone in an inebriated condition and another for contacting an accused person over phone.
Dismissing Boopathi’s appeal, the bench said: “This court has no power to trench on the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and to appreciate the evidence. All that is permissible is to ensure that the conclusion arrived at is based on evidence supporting the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.”
In the present case, during the course of inquiry, complainant was examined and the office assistant attached to the judicial magistrate court was examined. On behalf of the petitioner four witnesses were examined and documents were marked. The oral as well as documentary evidence were analysed by the enquiry officer, who concluded that the two charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, the court said.
This apart, the report of the inquiry officer was forwarded to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation to it. The report of the enquiry officer as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner were placed before the administrative committee of the high court.
The committee, upon consideration of the materials, resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, which was subsequently approved by the full court. Thus, from the stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was given all adequate opportunity to defend himself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed is one without any evidence, the court said.
He Had Abused Advocate In An Inebriated Condition
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:27.08.2019
The Madras high court has upheld the dismissal of a judicial magistrate from service on charges of having verbally abused an advocate in an inebriated condition.
Refusing to come to the aid of K V Mahendra Boopathi, who was sacked from service, a division bench of Justice R Subbiah and Justice C Saravanan said: “The petitioner, as a judicial officer, is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions and when the charges levelled and proved are related to his integrity in discharge of his duties, we are not in a position to appreciate the submission that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive.”
During the termination of service, Boopathi was serving as judicial magistrate in Melur, Madurai. There were two complaints against Boopathi — one for abusing an advocate over phone in an inebriated condition and another for contacting an accused person over phone.
Dismissing Boopathi’s appeal, the bench said: “This court has no power to trench on the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority and to appreciate the evidence. All that is permissible is to ensure that the conclusion arrived at is based on evidence supporting the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.”
In the present case, during the course of inquiry, complainant was examined and the office assistant attached to the judicial magistrate court was examined. On behalf of the petitioner four witnesses were examined and documents were marked. The oral as well as documentary evidence were analysed by the enquiry officer, who concluded that the two charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, the court said.
This apart, the report of the inquiry officer was forwarded to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation to it. The report of the enquiry officer as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner were placed before the administrative committee of the high court.
The committee, upon consideration of the materials, resolved to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, which was subsequently approved by the full court. Thus, from the stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was given all adequate opportunity to defend himself. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed is one without any evidence, the court said.
No comments:
Post a Comment