(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order passed by the respondent in DP.No.02 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and violation of the service jurisprudence and consequentially direct the respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the promotion panel list dated 19.07.2024 and 23.09.2024 and to give due promotion, monetary and other benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.)
Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by one K.Geetha, working as Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I at Gobichettipalayam. At the time of the filing of the writ petition for Certiorarified Mandamus, the petitioner sought to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order passed by the respondent in D.P.No.2/2024 dated 31.01.2025, to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and in violation of service jurisprudence and consequentially direct the respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the promotion panel list dated 19.07.2024 and 23.09.2024 to grant due promotion, monetary and other benefits within a time stipulated by this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was slapped with a Memo on 26.07.2023 by the District Munsif Court at Gobichettipalayam, calling for an explanation with regard to the missing of an ‘original document’ (Partition Deed dated 13.07.2000) said to have been filed in O.S.No.81 of 2020. The missing of the document from the case bundle was discovered when the matter was taken up on 15.06.2023. Because the writ petitioner was working as the Bench Clerk during the relevant period when P.W.1 filed his proof affidavit, the Memo was issued to her.
3. The subsequent Bench Clerk, K.Anbalagan, informed the Court that upon perusal of a new document namely Release Deed dated 09.09.2021, it came to light that by using the missing document, a new Release Deed was registered on 04.10.2021. The entire charge against the writ petitioner centers around the missing original document dated 13.07.2000.
4. The dates which are crucial in deciding the present case are:
* 10.06.2020 – Plaint in O.S.No.81 of 2020 (Ex.D1) was filed.
* 13.07.2000 – Serial No.1 in the plaint’s list of documents listed the original partition deed, confirming its initial presentation to the Court.
* 09.06.2023 - Proof affidavit of P.W.1 in O.S.No.81 of 2020 was filed. ✤
* 15.06.2023 - I.A.No.2 of 2023 was taken up. A docket order was passed noting a certified copy of Release Deed in Doc.No.2069 of 2021, dated 09.09.2021, registered on 04.10.2021. This document was a Partition Release Deed executed by using the missing original court document dated 13.07.2000.
5. As the Bench Clerk during the crucial period, the petitioner was the official custodian in charge of the records. She was required to explain how the missing document dated 13.07.2000 left the custody of the Court to be presented before the Sub-Registrar for the registration of the second document on 04.10.2021.
6. On the basis of these facts, a charge memo was issued and the District Munsif framed formal charges on 04.03.2024. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.03.2024. Following this, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, acting as the Inquiry Officer, conducted a domestic inquiry and through his proceedings dated 27.06.2024, submitted a report holding as under:
“I found that the above said submission of the Delinquents is acceptable, because it is already held that the document produced before the Concerned Court and the document produced before the Registrar are entirely different. Further, on the perusal of witness of P.W.3, it is found that she does not know who wrote and signed (Ex.P11) in Ex.P10. So, there is no evidence produced by the Prosecution to prove that Ex.P11 belongs to the Registrar. Further, the Prosecution can easily prove that the endorsement (Ex.P11) was made by the Registrar in Ex.P10 by getting the proper documents from the Concerned Registrar. But, the Prosecution has not taken steps to prove the alleged Ex.P11. At this juncture, without such evidence, it is difficult to hold that Ex.P11 was made by the Registrar at the time registration of Ex.P9. Further, the facts of using the Missing Document for the registration of Ex.P9 was known to the Plaintiff and first Defendant in O.S.No.81/2020, because the above said persons are the parties to the alleged Ex.P9. At this juncture, the Prosecution can easily prove the charges by examining the above said witnesses. But, the Prosecution failed to produce the best evidence to prove the charges leveled against the Delinquents. Further, on the perusal Ex.P26 and Ex.P27, it is found that the Delinquents made the allegations against each other. At the same time, on the careful perusal of above said documents, it is further found that they did not particularly submit that others committed the mistakes stated in the charges. At this juncture, even though the Delinquents made the allegations against each other, it will not support the case of the Prosecution. From the above, I hold that the Prosecution failed to prove that the document produced before the Concerned Court and the document produced before the Registrar are one and the same. So, the Prosecution failed to prove that Ex.D3 is produced before the Registrar for registration of Ex.P9.
13) Result:-
From the above discussions, I hold that the Prosecution failed to prove the basis facts for this inquiry, such as Ex.P10 was missed on 15.06.2023 from the case records and the document produced before the Concerned Court and document produced before the Registrar are one and the same. It is therefore found that the charges against the Delinquents are not proved.”
7. The matter was then placed before the Disciplinary Authority, the Principal District Judge, Erode. Upon perusal of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the Inquiry Officer’s findings. On 28.11.2024, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement notice, holding that the charges against the delinquent are not proved and passed the following order:
“Pursuant to the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Sub Judge Gobichettipalayam, for the charges against the delinquent employees Tmt.K.Geetha, former Bench Clerk Grade III, District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, now Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Gobichettipalayam and Tmt.A.Dhamayanthi, Junior Assistant, District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, the delinquent employees are hereby given an opportunity for submitting any representation in writing on such findings in the inquiry report, a copy of which is also attached herewith, as against them, and they are also hereby informed to submit such representation in writing on or before 16.12.2024 failing which it will be presumed that they have no representation on such findings, and further action will be taken on the merits of the case concerned, and the receipt of the copy of the proceedings along with the copy of the inquiry report concerned be acknowledged at once.”
8. The aforesaid order was marked to the petitioner. On 12.12.2024, the petitioner submitted an explanation requesting the Disciplinary Authority to exonerate her from the Rule 17(b) charges. The Disciplinary Authority/Principal District Judge, Erode, rejected this explanation but provided one final opportunity on 08.01.2025 for the petitioner to make a further representation responding to the specific grounds of disagreement. The scanned version of the relevant portion is as below:
9. After the aforesaid proceedings of the respondent dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner submitted her final explanation on 20.01.2025, reiterating that she had no knowledge of how the document went missing, stating the document had since become available and praying for discharge.
10. Ultimately, the respondent/Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty of negligence in protecting vital court records and passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2025.
11. The respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit stating that the charges were highly serious. They argued that only a mild/proportional punishment was imposed, there was no ground for judicial interference.
12. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner had no absolute knowledge regarding the missing document. He drew this Court’s attention to the list of documents in the plaint of O.S.No.81 of 2020, pointing out that while general corrections in the text were countersigned, the entry for the original 13.07.2000 partition deed lacked specific countersigns. He further argued that since the original document was later located in another Court bundle and the suit itself had concluded, the punishment should be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed.
13. On the other hand, Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how a document in her custody left the Court premises. He further submitted that these are serious charges and since only a lesser punishment was imposed, there is absolutely no need for any interference by this Court.
14. From a perusal of the plaint, which was filed through an additional typed set of papers on the side of the writ petitioner, we find that there is no correction or error. In fact, the original partition deed was filed along with the plaint. It can be safely presumed that at the time of numbering, various pencil marks indicate that the numbering clerk verified the document before numbering the plaint. Thus, from the plaint itself, it is very clear that the original partition deed dated 13.07.2000 was presented before the Court.
15. Subsequently, the very same original document namely, the Partition Deed dated 13.07.2000, was produced externally and another document was registered on 04.10.2021. The learned District Judge, who is the Disciplinary Authority, while discussing the charges, found that the document was taken away from the Court and that during the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner, along with another person, was in charge of the records.
16. The Disciplinary Authority, while evaluating the evidence, properly referred to:
* Ex.P8: The covering letter of the Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Gobichettipalayam.;
* Ex.P9: The Release Deed executed on 09.09.2021 registered on 04.10.2021; Ex.P10: The first page of the Partition Deed dated 13.07.2000, which was found to be missing;
* Ex.P11: The endorsement dated 04.10.2021, verified by the Joint Sub- Registrar-II, Gobichettipalayam.
17. After considering Exs.P8 to P11, it is established that the missing document dated 13.07.2000, which had been filed in the original suit, was submitted before the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Gobichettipalayam, for the registration of the subsequent release deed. The Joint Sub-Registrar-II, Gobichettipalayam, also made an endorsement dated 04.10.2021, verifying that he had perused the original partition deed dated 13.07.2000.
18. This crucial fact was not properly explained by the writ petitioner. A person who is the custodian of Court documents must exercise the utmost care while handling them. Incidents of this nature, where a document filed before the Court is unauthorizedly taken away for the purpose of registering another document without a proper order from the presiding Judicial Officer, are extremely serious in nature. As such, the writ petitioner ought to have given reasonable, proper and convincing evidence to demonstrate that she had no knowledge of the incident.
19. In the present case, there is no proper explanation or convincing evidence on the part of the writ petitioner. On the other hand, through the available materials and the clear endorsement of the Joint Sub-Registrar, the respondent has successfully established that the document left the Court premises for the purpose of registering another document.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued that the petitioner was unaware of how the document went out of the Court and further attempted to highlight that the document was subsequently located in another Court bundle and that the main suit has also concluded. We find that this argument is entirely unconvincing and cannot discharge the writ petitioner from the gravity of the charges.
21. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd and another reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440, arguing that subsequent to the proceedings of the District Munsif (Inquiry Officer) finding that the charges were not proved, no proper opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before deciding on the penalty.
22. However, looking at the factual background of this case, a specific and sufficient opportunity was given to the writ petitioner at every point of time by the Disciplinary Authority through disagreement notices and calls for further representation. In view of the same, the judgment relied upon by the writ petitioner is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
23. In view of the discussions stated above, we find that there is no necessity to interfere with the well-reasoned orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.01.2025 passed in D.P.No.2/2024.
24. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
