AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner was appointed as copyist in the High Court in 1978 and from July, 1987, he was working as P.A. to
Honourable Judges of this Court.
Mrs. Justice Padmini Jesudurai delivered a judgment in open court on 6.4.1992, in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 1987. The sessions court had
acquitted the accused in which the State has preferred the appeal. The acquittal was set aside and the accused was found guilty. Consequently, the
case was to be posted for getting statement of the accused regarding sentence. The matter was posted to 28.4.1992 for questioning accused with
regard to sentence. It is an open court dictation.
After judgment was dictated, petitioner, who was then P.A., transcribed the same and sent the same to learned Judge. It is seen that the
judgment was not signed by learned Judge and the case was also not posted for some days and in the meanwhile, learned Judge also laid down the
office. Subsequently, learned Judge was appointed as Full Time Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Even though the matter was directed to be posted on 28.4.1994. the matter could not be disposed of and a note was prepared by the office as
to before whom the criminal appeal is to be posted. The office note was placed before the Honourable Chief Justice on 11.7.1996. Justice K.A.
Swami, the then Chief Justice directed the matter to be posted before Justice Janarthanam. Honourable Chief Justice directed Justice Janarthanam
to sign the judgment pronounced by Justice Padmini Jesudurai in open court and directed the case to be posted before learned Justice M.
Srinivasan and Justice Janarthanam with regard to the sentence to be imposed. Honourable Chief Justice also directed the Additional Registrar
(Judicial) to initiate action against the concerned officials, who has failed to obtain the signature of the Judge. Later, it is seen that the case was
posted before the Division Bench consisting of Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice Y. Venkatachalam, on 30.7.1996.
In the meanwhile, pursuant to the direction dated 11.7.1996, explanation was asked for from petitioner and also the then Court Officer Rosula
in not getting the signature of Honourable Judge and to have the case posted. Delinquent officers submitted their explanation and Honourable Chief
Justice found that the explanation is not satisfactory and directed the Registrar to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials,
i.e., petitioner and the then Court Officer Rosula. Learned Chief Justice also appointed Additional Registrar (Judicial) as Enquiry Officer and Mr.
Chinnaiah Naidu as presenting officer as per proceedings dated 23.9.1996.
Before further proceeding into the matter, it is only proper to consider the charges framed against petitioner. The charge reads thus:
That you, Tmt. A. Rosula, Court Officer Thiru N. Mohan, P.A. to the Hon''ble Judges, have failed to obtain the signature of the Hon''ble Tmt.
Justice Padmini Jesudurai after the pronouncement of the said judgment in the open court on 6.4.1992. This act of yours shows your carelessness
which amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
Before enquiry started, petitioner also moved a representation seeking for a change of Enquiry Officer. Such request was made on 7.10.1996,
addressed to the Registrar of this Court.
Petitioner was not informed anything about the representation made by him for change of Enquiry Officer and therefore he had to file his
explanation. Court Officer Rosula also filed an explanation denying the charges and contended that as per the duties earmarked to them, they
cannot be said as negligent in not getting the signature of learned Judge. Not satisfied with the explanation enquiry was conducted and two
witnesses were examined. P.R. Sesha Iyer and N. Pitchai, both retired officers who were then working in court were examined. Petitioner as well
as Rosula also furnished their oral statement before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer as per report dated 4.12.1996 came to the conclusion that
the petitioner as well as Rosula have failed in getting the signature of learned Judge and there is dereliction of their duty. Findings of Enquiry Officer
was communicated to both delinquent officers and they were also asked to file their explanation. Both delinquent officers wanted some documents
to be perused to enable them to file their explanation. The said request was rejected and they were asked to file their explanation within the
stipulated time. Explanation was submitted which was not accepted by this Court. Honourable Chief Justice found them guilty and imposed penalty
of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect as per order dated 18.3.1997. It is against that order petitioner has come to this Court by
filing this writ petition.
In the various grounds taken in the writ petition it is alleged that as per instructions given by the office, P.A. to Hon''ble Judges, originally known
as shorthand writers cannot be made liable for the charge for the reason that shorthand writers are always engaged in the court and when
applications are received, Manager will have to utilise the services of these members. It is the duty of the Section Manager to look into these
matters. It is further submitted that as a P.A. petitioner has transcribed the dictation and placed the judgment before the Honourable Judge and
except last page where Honourable Judge has to sign, corrections are also entered in all the pages. It is not the case where they have not to ask the
learned Judge to sign, but learned Judge omitted to sign in spite of the fact that transcribed judgment was placed before the learned Judge.
According to petitioner, various office procedure shows that it is not the duty of petitioner to get the signature of the Judge and therefore he cannot
be accused of dereliction of duty. In the course of argument, learned Counsel for petitioner also submitted that the Court Officer Rosula, who was
also punished in the same way got the same reduced, on filing a review petition. Learned Counsel also said that the entire enquiry procedure was
vitiated and Enquiry Officer was biased against him. Even long before the enquiry began, when petitioner asked for change of Enquiry Officer
stating the reasons, the failure to pass order has also added to his agony and he was also compelled to take part in the proceedings.
We heard the learned Government Pleader also who argued the matter on instructions.
On request from us, the entire file was placed before the court for perusal.
While narrating facts, we have said that the punishment imposed on Rosula. the then Court Officer was reviewed and the punishment was
reduced. The punishment was reduced by the then Acting Chief Justice K.A. Thanikkachalam as per order dated 8.5.1997, which is part of the
file. Why we are referring to that order is the review was based on the letter sent by Justice Padmini Jesudurai dated 23.4.1997, after the
punishment was imposed on these officers. While reducing the punishment, learned Acting Chief Justice has taken into consideration the letter
written by Justice Padmini Jesudurai, which according to us will be of some relevance while considering the merits of the case. It is only proper on
our part to extract the entire letter written by the learned Justice Padmini Jesudurai, which read thus,
To
The Hon''ble Chief Justice, High Court, Madras.
Respected and dear Chief Justice,
Hope you are doing well.
I am writing this letter, in the larger interests of justice, to bring to your notice certain facts relating to disciplinary enquiries against my former P.A.
and Court Officer for failure to get my signature in a judgment.
The matter relates to the judgment in C.A. No. 170 of 1987. It was an appeal against an acquittal. I had heard both the sides and had posted the
matter to 6.4.1992 for orders. I dictated the order in open court setting aside the finding of acquittal and convicting the accused. The order was
taken in open court in shorthand by my P.A. Thiru N. Mohan. After the preliminary finding of conviction, the accused had to be heard on the
sentence, I therefore posted the case to a later date for hearing the accused on the sentence. The dictated judgment after it was typed out by Thiru
N. Mohan was circulated to me for correction. I have corrected the judgment in my hand. I have not signed the judgment. I now learn that charges
have been framed against Thiru N. Mohan and also against Tmt. Rosula who was my Court Officer, for failure to get my signature in the above
judgment.
In early 1996, Additional Registrar (Judicial) came to my chambers in the Central Administrative Tribunal in the City Civil Court Building with the
original judgment and wanted to know whether it was a pre-delivery judgment or an open court judgment. He stated that the clarification was
necessary to settle reference to a larger Bench in connection with the judgment. I told him that it was an open court dictation.
Later, I made that clear, when explanation was called for from the Court Officer. I retired in July, 1996, I now learn that charges had been framed
against both the P.A. and Court Officer for failure to get my signature in the judgment and that some penalty has been imposed on both. If I had
been asked about the circumstances under which the judgment was not signed, I would have clarified the matter.
This was a peculiar case of an appeal against acquittal, in which, if the appeal is to be allowed, judgment can be dictated only in two spells, if the
accused is not present. That portion of the judgment reversing the finding of the acquittal, has been dictated in open court on a particular date and
the remaining portion of the judgment imposing the penalty can be done only at a later date, after getting the accused and hearing him. Only then
the judgment is complete, my failure to sign the judgment when it was circulated to me is not due to oversight. Though, I do not distinctly remember
the details at this length of time, I feel that I would have taken the decision that signature of the Judge is necessary only when the judgment is
complete and sentence also is incorporated in it. If the case had been posted before me as directed, I would have heard the accused, given some
sentence, completed the judgment and signed it. Unfortunately, for no fault of the P.A. or the Court Officer, the posting section did not post the
appeal before me long as I was there. I also remember that letter, instead of allowing such appeals against acquittals being dragged on for the
appearance of the accused for questioning them on the sentence, I gave a minimum sentence permitted under Law and closed the judgment in one
spell.
I wish and pray that you would soon adorn your chair as a permanent Chief Justice.
[Italics supplied]
A reading of the letter makes it clear that it is not the case that learned Judge omitted to sign but was under the impression that the signature is
necessary only after sentence is imposed on the accused after hearing him. It is further stated in the letter that posting section did not post the
matter till learned Judge laid down her office.
We are well aware that in enquiry matters, this Court is to look into only those matters which are placed before the Enquiry Officer. In this
case, we are constrained to take into consideration the letter of learned Judge also since that is the matter Acting Chief Justice had taken note of
for reducing the punishment imposed on the Court Officer Rosula. The Acting Chief Justice had reduced the punishment only after considering the
letter of the learned Judge explaining the reasons as to why the judgment was not signed.
The best person to speak about the reason as to why the judgment was not signed is the concerned Judge herself. If only the case was posted
as directed by the Judge, the Judge would have explained the reason why signature was not affixed or would have signed after imposing the
sentence. It was the posting section, which is responsible for posting the case, is clear from the letter of the learned Judge.
It is here, we have to consider the explanation submitted by petitioner as well as the other delinquent Officer Rosula. It is their very case that it
is not their duty to get the signature of learned Judge. It is submitted that whenever corrections are catered in the judgment again the bundle goes to
the P.A. section and thereafter to the posting section. Posting section thereafter post the case as directed by the learned Judge. As per the duties,
the Manager of P.A. Section will have to send to various departments, sections, the judgment and orders received in the section after approval of
Honourable Judges and get acknowledgement thereof. Relevant portion of the manual read thus:
Shorthand-writers deputed to courts and residences of Honourable Judges should submit the transcripts of the judgments and orders for the
approval of the Honourable Judges without undue delay. Priority should be given to all urgent orders in the matter of submission of transcript. They
should, as far as possible, be submitted for approval on the same day they are dictated.
453(b). It will be the duty of the circulation peon to go over to the shorthand-writers'' section in the evening of each working day to collect and
ensure that draft judgments/orders prepared by the shorthand-writers and intended for circulation to the residence of Judges are promptly
circulated. He will also sign the hand-book and see to the proper circulation of such papers to the Judges concerned. When papers are received
back from the residences of the Judges that will also be promptly recorded in the shorthand-book.
(c) The overseer, will issue, specific and suitable instructions on the above lines to the circulation peon.
The Manager, Shorthand-writers'' section will send to the various Departments or sections the judgments and orders received in the section
after approval by the Honourable Judges and get the acknowledgments therefore.
In this case, petitioner has sent the transcribed Judgment to the learned Judge for approval. It has also been taken from the residence of learned
Judge and has been given to the Manager of P.A. section and subsequently, the same was sent to posting section. At the same time, we cannot
accept the contention that the P.A. have no duty in getting the signature. While getting corrected judgment, he is also bound to see that the Judge
has signed the same.
Why the posting section did not post the matter as directed by learned Judge is not explained. Taking into consideration the letter written by
learned Justice Padmini Jesudurai, we feel that if only posting section posted the case as directed, this difficulty would not have arisen and enquiry
also would have been avoided.
Apart from the above reasons, we feel petitioner has also been denied Justice in the case. While narrating facts, we have said that even before
trial began petitioner wanted change of Enquiry Officer. Definite reasons are given why Enquiry Officer is biased against him. From the file it could
be seen that this matter was placed before Lordship Chief Justice and there is an office note dated 16.10.1997, which read thus,
I am orally directed to ask present Enquiry Officer to continue.
When specific allegations have been made against the Enquiry Officers, we feel that the court should have acted little more reasonably by changing
the Enquiry Officer. It was the very same Enquiry Officer who met the learned Justice Padmini Jesudurai and this fact is clear from the letter written
by learned Judge herself. What transpired between them at that time and why learned Judge refused to sign are well within the personal knowledge
of the learned Judge. We feel that the High Court of judicature itself denied Justice to the petitioner in this case. The learned Judge, who knows it is
the duty to sign, knowingly did not a sign the judgment is not answerable to anyone. But the subordinate officers, in spite of the fact that the
judgment was placed before the learned Judge for correction are now made liable for the omission to get the signature in the judgment. We feel
that the proceedings against the delinquent officers was most improper. Persons who are all responsible for posting the case were not proceeded
against for reasons better known to the respondent. We feel that the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed.
Evidence of P.Ws. l and 2 also do not show how petitioner can be made responsible. They only speak of the procedure and these evidence
do not go against the case of petitioner.
In the result, we are constrained to quash the impugned order and we hold that petitioner cannot be made liable for not getting the signature of
the learned Judge. If the order has been implemented already, we direct the Registry to restore the scale of pay of petitioner to the original position
and also pay all monetary benefits consequent to the restoration.
The writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned order. However, there will be no order as to cost. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 9743 of
1997 is closed.