JUDGMENT Mohan, J. 1. The Writ Appeal arises under the following circumstances: The respondent herein was enrolled as an Advocate on 6.10.1960. He practised in this Court for about 13 years. He was appointed as Assistant State Prosecutor on 15.6.1974. Thereafter, he was selected as District Munsif and joined the Judicial service on 16.5.1976. He was posted to Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District. 2. During his term of office, misunderstandings arose between him and some of the advocates of Thuraiyur Bar, as a result of which the respondent (writ petitioner) was placed under suspension on 3.3.1988 by the following order: Order ROC.27/82 Con B.2, dt. 3.3.1988: Whereas an enquiry into grave charges against Thiru G.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, in respect of his misconduct is contemplated; And whereas in the circumstances of the case, it is necessary in public interest to place the said Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, under suspension from service: (1) Now therefore, under Sub-rule (e) of Rule 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the said Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, is with immediate effect placed under suspension until further orders. (2) During the period of suspension, the said Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, will be paid subsistence allowance and dearness allowance admissible under Rule 53(1) of Fundamental Rules. (3) The headquarters of Thiru C.B.S. Naidu shall be Thuraiyur during the period of suspension and the said Thiru C.B.S. Naidu shall not leave the headquarters specified above without obtaining previous permission of the High Court. (4) Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, is directed to hand over charge of his post to the Head Clerk of his Court immediately on receipt of this proceedings. (5) Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur is required to acknowledge the receipt of the proceedings and furnish his address immediately to the High Court. 3. Even though three months had elapsed since the order of suspension, neither charges have been framed nor the suspension revoked. The order of suspension, therefore, is illegal and arbitrary. It is challenged on the following grounds, inter alia. In construing a similar order, this Court in W.P. No. 9855 of 1987 (N. Deenadayalan v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range) held that unless the charges are actually formulated, he cannot be placed under suspension and that having regard to the terms of G.O. Ms. It is challenged on the following grounds, inter alia. In construing a similar order, this Court in W.P. No. 9855 of 1987 (N. Deenadayalan v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range) held that unless the charges are actually formulated, he cannot be placed under suspension and that having regard to the terms of G.O. Ms. 211, P. & A.R. dated 27.2.1980, a person cannot be kept under suspension for more than three months. In the case of the respondent herein (the writ petitioner), no review has been done after the expiry of three months from the date of the impugned order dated 3.3.1988. 4. The respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The suspension is also not in public interest. Therefore, the writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of suspension dated 3.3.1988. Pending the writ petition, he also prayed for interim stay. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition (the appellant herein) stating that the writ petitioner was posted as District Munsif-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Hosur on 1651986. There had been an agitation by the Bar members of Hosur in respect of the conduct of the Officer. Therefore, it became necessary to transfer him and post him as District Munsif, Nannilam. The relationship between the Bar and the Bench strained. In order to avoid further confrontation, he was transferred and posted as District Munsif, Thuraiyur. Here also, the same problem arose. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) had not completed his probation. In the last 11/2 years of his service, he served at three places and in all the three places, the relationship between the Bench and the Bar was not cordial. As a matter of fact, when he was District Munsif, Thuraiyur, the Bar Association of Thuraiyur, met the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, and submitted a memorandum containing grievance against the District Munsif. The District Judge discussed the matter with the Bar and the Presiding Officer, perused the relevant records and informed the High Court that in view of the attitude of the District Munsif and also to avoid further confrontation between the Bench and the Bar, the officer may be shifted. 6. On behalf of the lawyers of Thuraiyur, Mr. The District Judge discussed the matter with the Bar and the Presiding Officer, perused the relevant records and informed the High Court that in view of the attitude of the District Munsif and also to avoid further confrontation between the Bench and the Bar, the officer may be shifted. 6. On behalf of the lawyers of Thuraiyur, Mr. R. Gandhi, Senior Advocate and the President of the Federation of the Bar Association, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry submitted an affidavit sworn to by the President of Thuraiyur Bar Association before the Honourable Chief Justice. 7. The District Collector, Tiruchirapalli, also informed the Registrar, High Court, the respondent in the writ petition over the telephone and apprised that the Bar is agitating and gheroing the Presiding Officer, so much so, it became necessary on the Part of the Presiding Officer to approach the police and conditions were going worse. 8. On a consideration of these matters, the impugned order of suspension came to be passed. Thereafter, a direction was given to the Special Officer, Vigilance, to cause further enquiry and submit a report. 9. The interpretation placed by the petitioner on Rule 17(2)(1)(i) is not correct. G.O.Ms. No. 211 dated 27.2.1980 does hot apply to persons serving in Judicial service in view of the decision in the Chief Justice Andlira Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dikshitalu. It is incorrect to state that the High Court has no competence to suspend a Judicial Officer under its control. The suspension has not been imposed by way of punishment but only to enable the investigation and holding of an enquiry in respect of the allegations against the judicial officer. There are no merits in the writ petition and the interim stay granted had to be vacated. 10. Though interim stay was granted initially, later on the learned Judge (Nainar Sundaram, J.) when he took up the writ petition for final hearing, passed the following order on 19th July, 1988. Considering the limited scope of the controversy in the writ petition and also taking note of the ratio of this Court in N. Deenadayalan v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengalpattu Range (W.P. No. 9855 of 1987, Order dated 29.2.1988) the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today. Admittedly, on the date of the impugned order of suspension, no charge has been framed. Admittedly, on the date of the impugned order of suspension, no charge has been framed. The rule invoked is Rule 17(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Considering the scope of a similar rule, it has been held in the pronouncement referred to above that without framing charges, on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated (sic). Applying the same ratio, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Under these circumstances, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Registrar, High Court, Madras. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader strongly urges that the view taken by the learned Judge is no longer good law in view of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in W.P. No. 5404 of 1988 (D. Uthirakumaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu dated 29.7.1988.) As a matter of fact, the very ruling on which the learned Judge relied on, had come to be reversed in the said judgment of the Division Bench. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to invoke Rule 17(e)(1). Even otherwise, having regard to the various circumstances, this is a fit case in which Rule 17(e)(1) could be invoked. 12. It is incorrect to contend that G.O.Ms. No. 211 could ever apply to the facts of this case. In G.O. Ms. No. 1260 Home, dated 28.5.1987, the Government have categorically laid down the said G.O. has no application to members belonging to the Judicial Service. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ appeal may be allowed. 13. In answer to these submissions, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the respondent herein (writ petitioner) submits as follows: The order of suspension had come to be passed for collateral purposes by yielding to the pressure of the Bar. Hence, it is bad. There are no grave charges which are in contemplation as seen from the affidavit of the Registrar filed in the writ petition. Nor again, does it disclose any prima facie case. 14. After having passed the order of suspension, it is sought to be buttressed by an enquiry concerning allegations which are totally alien to the order of suspension. On the basis of materials subsequently obtained, the earlier order of suspension cannot be sustained. Lastly it is submitted that there is no link between the allegations formulated and the complaint made by the lawyer. On the basis of materials subsequently obtained, the earlier order of suspension cannot be sustained. Lastly it is submitted that there is no link between the allegations formulated and the complaint made by the lawyer. As a matter of fact, the enquiry that is being conducted by the learned District Judge was not the subject-matter of suspension of the petitioner. Even applying the ratio of the judgment in W.P.5404 of 1988, there must be suspected misconduct. Here, there is absolutely no misconduct whatsoever. Therefore, where a link between various stages is completely lacking as has been pointed out in the judgment relied on by the other side in W.P. No. 5404 of 1988, then certainly there is every reason to hold that the order of suspension is bad. 14-A. First of all, G.O.Ms. No. 211, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 27.2.1980 would apply because still the writ petitioner does not cease to be a Government servant. Therefore, unless there is a review, it is incorrect to continue the suspension against the petitioner. 15. We have already extracted the order of suspension passed by the Registrar, High Court, the appellant in this writ appeal. That categorically lays down that the order of suspension had come to be passed only under Rule 17(1)(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rule. The order of suspension reads: Whereas an enquiry into grave charges against Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, District Munsif, Thuraiyur, in respect of his misconduct is contemplated. Earlier, the view that prevailed in this Court was that unless there is a formulation of charges, there cannot be a suspension, even by way of interim measure though not punitive in character. But that is no longer good law because in W.P. No. 5404 of 1988 dated 29.7.1988 (D.B.) to which one of us was a party, took the view that where there are accusations against the officer concerned and in respect of which an enquiry is contemplated, certainly Rule 17(e)(1) could be invoked. In the present case, as the affidavit of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, puts the matter beyond doubt, the suspension came to be made because of the various agitations by the members of the Bar Associations. In the present case, as the affidavit of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, puts the matter beyond doubt, the suspension came to be made because of the various agitations by the members of the Bar Associations. A situation had reached in which it was no longer possible to carry on the judicial administration with the respondent herein as the head of the Munsif. As a matter of fact, we find the Bar Association of Hosur passed the following resolutions about the inconvenience that were caused by reason of the respondent herein: PROCEEDINGS OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION HOSUR AT AN EMERGENT MEETING HELD ON 26.9.1986. At the above meeting held the members of the Bar who had gathered at the meeting after a deep serious and solemn consideration have passed the following resolutions and these resolutions are submitted to 1. The Honourable Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature, Madras. 2. The Registrar of High Court of Judicature at Madras. 3. The District Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri for their consideration and also a copy is communicated to the District Munsif-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur for his kind information. The following are the resolutions: RESOLUTION 1: The members of the Bar strongly feel that the way in which the day today proceedings is being carried on by the Presiding Officer namely Munsif-cum-S.DJ.M. Hosur is offensive and insulting the dignity of the Bar. In the matter of trial and examination of witnesses in the cases, no sufficient time is given even to frame questions and the proceedings of the Court are carried hurriedly resulting in miscarriage of justice to parties. RESOLUTION 2: In Criminal Cases in the matter of acceptance of sureties, the villagers who come as sureties and who are illiterate and not acquainted with the proceedings of the Court are harassed by putting unnecessary and unwanted questions and solvency is rejected arbitrarily. RESOLUTION 3: In the matter of appointment of Commissioners and Receivers, no fixed norms or guidelines is adopted with the result there is no fair distribution of Commissions and receivership among the members of the Bar. And even the Commissioners who are appointed are not given sufficient time or opportunity to place the report and plans. RESOLUTION 3: In the matter of appointment of Commissioners and Receivers, no fixed norms or guidelines is adopted with the result there is no fair distribution of Commissions and receivership among the members of the Bar. And even the Commissioners who are appointed are not given sufficient time or opportunity to place the report and plans. RESOLUTION 4: The litigants are made to wait till very late hours in the Court and indefinitely resulting in inconvenience to the litigant public with the result for people who are coming from distant places especially...from the Forest areas they have to face lot of inconveniences and are not able to reach their villages in time. Many of the villages located in the forest areas especially in Dekonikottai taluk is infested with wild animals making journey risky and perilous. RESOLUTION 5: The members of the Bar unanimously feel that late sittings in Court every day beyond Court hours causes inconvenience to the members of the bar in the matter of preparation of cases for the next day. All the above resolutions are discussed fully and passed unanimously. Then again, a resolution was passed when he was Presiding Officer at Nanilani District Munsif's Court on 29.4.1987 which is to the following effect: Resolved to abstain from attending the District Munsif s Court, Nannilam, from 30th of April. 1987. since the Presiding Officer. District Munsif (Mr. C.B.S. Naidu) has not changed his irritable attitude in the Court and towards the Bar members in spite of the personal representation made to him on 6.4.1987. We, the members and the Bar have no other way except to express our dissent and dissatisfaction by adopting this peaceful method. Even after vacation, if the same District Munsif, continues to hold office, the abstinence would be continued. If in the meanwhile, he is transferred, then he will be attending the Court regularly. This resolution to be communicated to the High Court and District Court for information and speedy action. The learned District Judge of East Thanjavur forwarded the same to the writ petitioner (respondent herein) on 30th April; 1987 calling upon him to furnish his remarks. Again, on 14.1.1980, a representation was made by the Bar Association of Thuraiyur to the following effect: Inspite of our many representations to the District Munsif, he did not redress our grievances. The learned District Judge of East Thanjavur forwarded the same to the writ petitioner (respondent herein) on 30th April; 1987 calling upon him to furnish his remarks. Again, on 14.1.1980, a representation was made by the Bar Association of Thuraiyur to the following effect: Inspite of our many representations to the District Munsif, he did not redress our grievances. Therefore, the association met on 12.1.1988 and decided to represent to your honour to alleviate our grievances: 1. The District Munsif states the dates in the previous month itself when the cases were called in calling work, what cases will be put in the next month list, of course on the consent of both advocates. But no list is prepared for the month and is given to the Bar. The non-preparation of list does not allow us to know how many cases are posted on a given day. 2. The learned District Munsif is not giving certified copies of EA. and orders passed thereon, I.As. and orders passed thereon, E.Ps. and orders passed thereon to parties on application and suit register copies to third parties. There is no prohibition for the issue of these copies. The District Munsif, may be instructed in this regard. 3. Before taking up the enquiry on EAs., E.Ps., and IAs. on a particular posted day, it maybe posted finally. Else the members of the Bar could not inform the parties and be ready on that date. 4. Some of the members have work in other Court in Perambalur, Musiri and Trichy. In spite of the members representation on previous day itself, that his work may be taken up after lunch, the represented members' case used to be called even before lunch and disposed of exparte even though the learned District Munsif consented to the request of the member on the previous day. 5. Number of commission petitions, even if filed urgently, are not disposed of. These petitions are being adjourned to long dates after the counter is filed by the other side. 6. So far in legal aid matters, the lawyers attending camps are not paid their remuneration. Hence, they are not inclined to attend further camps. It is requested that your Honour may be pleased to duly instruct the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur, to look into these grievances and to remedy the same. 6. So far in legal aid matters, the lawyers attending camps are not paid their remuneration. Hence, they are not inclined to attend further camps. It is requested that your Honour may be pleased to duly instruct the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur, to look into these grievances and to remedy the same. Concerning this as well, the learned District Judge, Thiruchirappalli, by proceedings dated 23.1.1983 directed the respondent herein to offer his remarks. Stopping here for a moment, certainly if in legal aid matters, the lawyers attending camps are not paid their remuneration, that is a serious matter. These are prima facie serious allegations, grave enough to warrant suspension. It is not open to the respondent herein to urge that there are no materials to frame charges against him. The argument of Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in trying to forge a link between these resolutions of the Bar on the one hand and the enquiry against the respondent, is the one that really causes confusion. In order to appreciate this point, we will now extract the official memorandum issued to the respondent by the Registrar of the High Court on 7.7.1988. 1. Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, while functioning as District Munsif, Thuraiyur, was placed under suspension with effect from the forenoon on 4.3.1988 pending enquiry into grave charges of misconduct. 2. The Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras, made preliminary enquiries and found that there are materials to substantiate the allegation that Thiru C.B.S. Naidu was owning a Taxi Van and utilising the service of Amins and process-Servere for getting hire for this van; and that he conducted two legal aid camps and collected Rs. 450 as hire charges for this van using it for trip by preparing false vouchers. He has not informed the High Court about the owning of the vehicle. 3. A Departmental Enquiry is initiated against Thiru C.B.S. Naidu, formerly District Munsif, Thuraiyur on the irregularities committed by him in conducting the two legal aid camps and for violating Rule 7(2) and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1973, in not reporting to the High Court about the purchase of the van and in engaging himself in private trade by running the Van for hire without obtaining prior permission. 4. 4. The Principal District Judge, Thiruchirapalli, is required to conduct the departmental enquiry and submit his findings to the High Court at an early date. 5. The receipt of this Memorandum is required to be acknowledged at once. 16. As a corollary to this, allegations have also been made calling upon the respondent to furnish his explanation. What is now contended before us is about the first paragraph mentioning that the respondent had been placed under suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges of misconduct. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the grave charges only mean, the charges which are listed against him by the District Judge, by proceedings dated 11.7.1988. We are totally unable to accept this argument. As a matter of fact, the official memorandum dated 7.7.1988 of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, merely mentions that the respondent has been suspended pending enquiry into grave charges. By no stretch of imagination can it be contended that the charges here mean the charges on which the respondent is called upon to face an enquiry. This will be very clear because the memorandum of the Registrar is dated 7.7.1980. Interim suspension had taken place under Rule 17(e)(i) as early as 4.3.1988 and at that time these were not charges at all. That is why the Registrar takes a definite stand in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition as to the reason for suspension of the respondent herein. He does not anywhere even obliquely refer to the charges for which the respondent is now facing the enquiry before the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. In other words, it is clear that because of his inability to get along with the Bar properly and in a manner worthy of a Judicial Officer, the suspension order has come to be ordered. As rightly urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader the Bar and the Bench are the two wheels of the chariot of justice. We are of the considered view the post of a Judicial Officer is an enerous one defenceless one too. But that does not mean the respondent could behave in a manner not worthy of the post of dispensation of justice. We are not for a moment to be understood we have expressed any opinion about the resolutions passed by the various Bar Associations. But that does not mean the respondent could behave in a manner not worthy of the post of dispensation of justice. We are not for a moment to be understood we have expressed any opinion about the resolutions passed by the various Bar Associations. But suffice it to point out that it cannot be an accident that all the three Bar Associations in three different districts, namely, Hosur at krishnagiri, Nannilam at East Thanjavur and Thuraiyur at Thiruchirapalli have all expressed disgruntlement at the behaviour of the respondent herein. We have already extracted the resolutions to show that these are matters concerning which if a complaint is received by the highest authority of judicial administration, namely, the Honourable the Chief Justice, it is but proper to enquire into the same and one cannot turn his Nelson's eye to these resolutions. We are obliged to say so because repeatedly we heard arguments from Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram that the respondent-District Munsif had been penalised for being an upright and strict officer and the interim order of suspension had come to be passed for collateral purpose to get rid of him. We find great difficulty in appreciating this argument. There is absolutely no collateral purpose whatever. It is for the purpose of maintaining the purity of judicial administration in order that it may inspire confidence among the litigant public as well as the members of the Bar. Certainly it cannot be contended that the judiciary could function in isolation, divorced of the hard realities surrounding the judicial administration. Therefore, the argument that the interim suspension had come to be passed for collateral purposes or again there are no serious allegations to warrant interim suspension, do not appeal to us. Equally, it is incorrect to contend there are no grave charges in contemplation. It is seen from the order is W.P. No. 5404 of 1988 that the contemplation means to think about and to have a close examination. Therefore, pending close examination of the various accusations against the respondent passed unanimously by three different Bar Associations, he has come to be suspended. We are of the view that they require to be examined and pending such examination only, all these accusations had come to be made. They are fully justified under the circumstances of the case. 17. Turning to the next argument of G.O.Ms. We are of the view that they require to be examined and pending such examination only, all these accusations had come to be made. They are fully justified under the circumstances of the case. 17. Turning to the next argument of G.O.Ms. No. 211 dated 27.2.1980, all that we need to refer is G.O.1260 dated 28.5.1987. Besides the argument of the appellant is fortified by the ruling of the Supreme Court cited therein. Thus, we find that the basis of allowing the writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 9855 of 1987 haying gone in view of the fact that the said judgment had been reversed in W.P. No. 5404 of 1988, the appellant is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal and dismiss the writ petition. However having regard to the fact that the respondent (writ petitioner) is a judicial officer, under suspension, we do not think he should be mulcted with costs.