'District Judge Stooped So Low To Take Vengeance Against His PSO' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Vigilance Enquiry

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a District Judge's plea against Vigilance Enquiry, after he was accused of misusing his position to seek vengeance against his own former Personal Security Officer (PSO).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared for the petitioner-judge.

Briefly put, the petitioner challenged a Madras High Court order, whereby the Registrar (Vigilance) was directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against him regarding misuse of power and bias.

As per allegations, the judge was under the impression that his former PSO repeatedly sent anonymous complaints against him. When this PSO and his family had an altercation with another group, the judge compelled registration of FIR (one against each group) even though the matter was settled between the parties. Further, he passed two suo motu orders - one, for externment of the PSO and his family members, and another, for remand of a Deputy Superintendent of Police who appeared in connection with the case but did not take action against the accused.

Vide the impugned order, the High Court set aside both the suo motu orders passed by the petitioner-judge and ordered enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance). It was observed that the manner in which the two orders were passed prima facie "probabilized" the allegations against the judge.

Notably, the enquiry by the Registrar revealed that the judge misused his power to settle personal scores. Recently, this report was ordered to be placed before a Vigilance Committee, comprising senior High Court judges, for appropriate action. The report was also directed to be placed before the Transfer Committee, which resulted in transfer of the judge.

During today's hearing, Justice Mehta noted that the DSP, whose remand was ordered by the petitioner-judge, was sent to custody in the latter's vehicle. "Is it normal to send a man to custody without recording any proceedings?" remarked the judge. Justice Nath, on his part, noted that the High Court has only ordered Vigilance Enquiry and the petitioner has not been dismissed from service.

For the petitioner, Naidu pressed into service his experience of 26 years and highlighted the pressures that judges work under. The senior counsel contended that the enquiry was ordered behind the judge's back and questioned the impact of the situation on judicial morale. "The Hon'ble High Court could have placed it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, or else, given him an opportunity. Now there are about 11 imputations, troubling his whole career", he submitted.

In response, Justice Mehta retorted, "we are surprised why you have not been suspended! District Judge stooped so low to take vengeance against his own PSO. When you start acting with vengeance, in matters with which he has no concern, that is gross dereliction of duty". The judge also questioned what was the basis for the petitioner to interfere in a case which had been settled between the accused-parties amongst themselves.

At last, Naidu contended that the petitioner went beyond his remit, but unfortunately, the High Court did the same. Justice Mehta responded to the same with a sharp "no". When the bench indicated its inclination to dismiss the case, the senior counsel chose to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, the case was dismissed as withdrawn.

Background

Two complaints were filed before the Walajabad Police Station by one T Sivakumar and by one Parvathi. The complaints were based on altercations that took place between the two groups, one consisting of the judge's PSO and the other of Parvathi. The allegation was that when Parvathi's husband and others came to the bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law, there arose some altercation regarding the quality of the product.

Since both the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably, the complaints were closed on the same day.

However, the petitioners alleged, due to personal animosity with the PSO, the judge had directed the police to register an FIR based on the closed complaint. When the judge threatened to take action if no FIR was filed, two FIRs were registered against both the parties.

The FIR against Parvathi's husband and others was registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. The FIR against the PSO and his family members was filed under offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Following this, the judge passed a suo motu order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act for externment of the accused persons, including the PSO, his father-in-law and others. The judge also called upon the DSP to enquire about the implementation of the order. On appearance, the DSP was made to wait from morning till evening and a second suo motu order was passed remanding him to judicial custody. The DSP was then taken to the sub-jail by the court staff in the official car of the judge.

The High Court noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, however, except the FIR, there were no other police reports.

With respect to the order remanding the DSP, it was noted that arrest was the discretion of the Investigating Officer and the judge could not direct that a particular person be arrested. The court also noted that unless there was a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the judge could not automatically initiate action against a public servant as a matter of right.

Case Title: PA. U. CHEMMAL Versus LOKESHWARAN RAVI AND ORS., Diary No. 65129-2025