HC upholds dismissal of Magistrate for misconduct

The Madras High Court has upheld the dismissal of a magistrate over two phone conversations with an accused and an advocate, saying a judicial officer is required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty.

A bench comprising justices R Subbaiah and C Saravanan rejected the petition by K V Mahendra Boopathi, who was the Judicial Magistrate of Melur in Madurai district, challenging the High Court Registrar General's June 8, 2018 order dismissing him from service.

There were two complaints against Boopathi that he scolded an advocate of an accused in an inebriated state and the other that he spoke to another accused. Both the conversations were on phone.

 

The petitioner, as a Judicial Officer, was required to maintain absolute integrity and honesty in discharge of his functions, the court said in its order, adding all procedural formalities had been adhered to in his case and no interference was warranted.

"...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 made by the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is unwarranted and excessive," the bench said in its recent order.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal order was passed without any evidence, 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."

The bench said after examination of the complainant, the office assistant attached to the magistrate, four witnesses of the petitioner, the inquiry officer who analysed the oral and documentary evidence had concluded the two charges had been proved.

Elaborately mentioning the process before the Administrative Committee of the court resolved to impose the punishment, which was subsequently approved by the Full Court, the bench said all procedural formalities had been adhered to and, therefore, the interference of the court was not warranted against the order.