Judgment :- Elipe Dharmarao, J. Based on the complaint, dated 19.4.2005, sent by one T.Chandran of Tirunelveli to the Registry of the High Court, to the effect that the petitioner, while working as I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli had some intimacy with Tmt.Jayanthi, Head Clerk, Fast Track Court No.I, Tirunelveli, thus facilitating her to collect money from the parties in respect of the proceedings pending before the petitioner assuring favourable judgments, a discreet enquiry was conducted by the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court, Madras against the petitioner, then I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli and now a District Judge, working as Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu and others. 2. In the report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, it has been clearly mentioned that there is no person with the name Chandran in the address given in the complaint and thus, the complaint, is a pseudonymous one, but, however, there is a reference to an Advocate, by name C.N.Babu, who is said to have been living in the house opposite to the house where the said Jayanthi is living and as the complaint has been sent in the name of a non-existent, fictitious person, the advocate by name C.N.Babu, referred to in the complaint, was examined as W.No.1. It has further been stated in the said report that a close consideration of the evidence of Thiru C.N.Babu would reveal prima facie that there has been close intimacy between the petitioner and Tmt.Jayanthi and that taking advantage of the said intimacy, the said Tmt.Jayanthi had been collecting money from the parties to the proceedings pending before the petitioner, Thiru Sivaprakasam and Thiru Rahamathullah. It has further been observed that even though the witness would speak to the factum of Tmt.Jayanthi collecting money from the litigants on the assurance of obtaining favourable orders from these Presiding Officers, still there is no material in the shape of the deposition of the witness or otherwise that the money so taken by Tmt.Jayanthi was paid to these judicial officers. Therefore, the Registrar (Vigilance) was of the considered view that the allegation, to the extent, that the petitioner was having some intimacy with the member of staff Tmt.Jayanthi and that Tmt.Jayanthi had been indulging in taking money from the parties to the proceedings, pending before these Presiding Officers, on the assurance of obtaining favourable orders from them, has been substantiated and in other respects, the allegation levelled against the other two officers, has not been substantiated. 3. The said report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court was placed before the Administrative Committee for consideration and on considering the final report of the Registrar (Vigilance), the Administrative Committee, in its meeting held on 8.1.2008, has resolved to call for an explanation from the petitioner, further resolving to direct the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against Tmt.Jayanthi, Head Clerk, Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli. 4. As resolved, an explanation was called for from the petitioner, who denied the allegations. The said explanation was placed before the Administrative Committee on 17.10.2008, which found the explanation submitted by the petitioner not satisfactory and directed the Registry to frame charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo. dated 31.10.2008, which reads as follows: "That you, Thiru M.Mohammed Essath Ali, while functioning as I Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, had some intimacy with Tmt.Jayanthi, Head Clerk, Fast Track Court, No.I, Tirunelveli, thus facilitating Tmt.Jayanthi to collect money from the parties in respect of the proceedings pending before you assuring favourable judgments; the said allegation, if proved,will be a misconduct of conducting yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer,falling under Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and thereby rendered yourself liable to be proceeded against under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules." 5. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within 15 days. On receipt of this charge memo., the petitioner has sent a representation dated 7.11.2008 to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, seeking to furnish the copies of the following: "a) Statements obtained from witnesses including that of the complainant/petitioner D.Chandran. b) Documents relied upon by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras. c) Report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court,Madras including the report of enquiry in respect of enquiry in respect of Mr.Rahmathullah (Fast Track Judge) and Mr.Siva Prakasam (District Judge). b) Documents relied upon by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras. c) Report of the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court,Madras including the report of enquiry in respect of enquiry in respect of Mr.Rahmathullah (Fast Track Judge) and Mr.Siva Prakasam (District Judge). d) Details of alleged cases wherein favourable judgments were rendered pursuant to recommendation of Tmt.Jayanthi (now working as Head Clerk, Fast Track Court I, Tirunelveli). e) Any proceedings initiated against Tmt.Jayanthi (now working as Head Clerk, Fast Track Court I, Tirunelveli), if so kindly furnish me with a copy of the enquiry report including statements/documents relied upon in the report." 6. For this a reply was sent by the Registrar General to the petitioner, dated 21.1.2009, informing him that his request for furnishing the documents mentioned as (c), (d) and (e) above, is rejected and so far as the documents (a) and (b) are concerned, since the complaint is a pseudonymous one, the statement of the alleged complainant could not be recorded and the only document relied upon by the Registrar (Vigilance) viz. the statement of the witness Thiru C.N.Babu was already furnished. By this communication, it has also been communicated to the petitioner that the existing charge proceedings communicated by the order dated 31.10.2008 has been amended, as per the annexure enclosed therewith. The amended charge issued to the petitioner, by the proceedings dated 21.1.2009, reads as follows: "That you, Thiru M.Mohammed Essath Ali, while functioning as I Addl.Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, had some intimacy with Tmt.Jayanthi, Head Clerk, Fast Track Court, No.I, Tirunelveli, which if proved, will be a misconduct of conducting yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer,falling under Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 and thereby rendered yourself liable to be proceeded against under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules." 7. The petitioner was required to put forth his written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge proceedings. The petitioner was required to put forth his written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge proceedings. Since the petitioner, by his letter dated 10.2.2009 has submitted that he did not receive the copy of the statement recorded by the Registrar (Vigilance) from the said Thiru C.N.Babu and also requested to grant a further time of 15 days to put forth his written statement of defence after the receipt of the copy of the said statement of Thiru C.N.Babu, the same was furnished to him by the Registry by the proceeding dated 13.2.2009, further granting a further time of 15 days to submit his written statement of defence. But, the petitioner, without submitting his written statement of defence, to the amended charge memo. dated 21.1.2009, has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4695 of 2009 before this Court, praying to quash the said charge memo. dated 21.1.2009, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari. His main contention in the said writ petition is that the charge has been framed bereft of any material or evidence and the same has been framed without looking into relevant materials. 8. A Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya and Honourable Mr.Justice N.Kirubakaran, has disposed of the said writ petition, on 17.4.2009, finding as follows: "4. We find that the witness Mr.C.N.Babu, Advocate has made certain deposition on 6.11.2008 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and made a specific statement that he gave statement on the instruction of the Vigilance Department and he had no personal knowledge regarding the allegations in the petition. In the Official Memorandum dated 21.1.2009, the Registrar General has informed that as regards the statement obtained from the witnesses is concerned,since the complaint given by the D.Chandran is a pseudonymous one, the statement of alleged complainant could not be recorded. 5. Thus, we find, prima facie, a case has been made out to reconsider the matter and we are of the view that instead of deciding the case on merit by this Court, the matter should be remitted back to the administrative side of this Court (by the Administrative Committee) for reconsideration of the question whether, in the facts and circumstances, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner is called for. If on appreciation of the evidence on record, the administrative side of this Court finds that the matter requires reconsideration, it may pass appropriate orders. 6. We, accordingly, remit the matter to the administrative side of the High Court, with a direction to the Registrar General to bring to the notice of the Honble the Chief Justice, who, in his turn, may call for Administrative Committee meeting on an early date, preferably in the month of April, 2009. In case, any adverse decision is taken, it will be open to the petitioner to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 9. It is to be pointed out that this order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has reached its finality, since not challenged by the petitioner. 10. Thereupon, the mater was placed before the Administrative Committee on 18.4.2009, which has resolved to call for the explanation from the delinquent officer/the petitioner. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent/Registrar General that while the subject relating to the awarding of District Judge (Selection Grade) to the petitioner was placed before the Administrative Committee on 23.4.2009, a direction was issued by the Administrative Committee to the Registry to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner. Having entertained a doubt regarding the action to be taken in pursuance of the minutes of the Administrative Committee dated 18.4.2009 and 23.4.2009, the matter was placed before the Honourable The Chief Justice and the Honourable The Chief Justice has directed to proceed with the enquiry. This decision was informed to the petitioner by the communication dated 25.6.2009, pursuant to his request dated 12.6.2009, giving him a time of 15 days to submit his written statement of defence on the charges framed against him. 11. On receipt of the said communication, instead of submitting his written statement of defence, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition, praying to quash the said communication of the High Court, dated 25.6.2009. 12. In his affidavit filed in support of this writ petition also, the petitioner has raised the same old grounds, which were raised by him in W.P.No.4695 of 2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has remitted the matter to the Administrative Committee for consideration. 12. In his affidavit filed in support of this writ petition also, the petitioner has raised the same old grounds, which were raised by him in W.P.No.4695 of 2009, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has remitted the matter to the Administrative Committee for consideration. It has been submitted by him that he has been targeted by some persons with malafide motive and vested interest to spoil his career and have cooked up this false complaint against him. He has also submitted that when he was working as the II Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in a matter, he directed the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence, pursuant to the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court and the Division Bench of this Court, while passing an order dated 26.8.2007 in H.C.P.No.534 of 2007, has passed certain adverse remarks against him and also directed that the matter be placed before the Honourable The Chief Justice. Therefore, he filed an appeal in Crl.Appeal No.149 of 2009 as against the said order of the Division Bench before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, by the order dated 23.1.2009, has expunged the adverse remarks and also set aside the direction issued by the Division Bench to place the matter before The Honourable The Chief Justice. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that there is no material on record to proceed against the petitioner and in the absence of any material available against the petitioner, no action should have been initiated against the petitioner, that too based on a pseudonymous complaint received by the Registry. 13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that there is no material on record to proceed against the petitioner and in the absence of any material available against the petitioner, no action should have been initiated against the petitioner, that too based on a pseudonymous complaint received by the Registry. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner served as Additional Sub Judge, Tirunelveli from the year 1995 to 1998 and the alleged complaint was sent to the High Court on 19.4.2005 that is after almost a period of six years of his transfer from Tirunelveli and the first respondent has initiated the impugned action nearly three years after receipt of the said petition and thus, there is a long delay of nine years and the petitioner has been made to suffer unnecessarily on a pseudonymous petition sent by a non-existent person and this has serious affect on the future prospects of the petitioner and therefore, the present action on the part of the respondents is not at all warranted and needs to be quashed by this Court. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further argue that even according to the respondents, the only material available against the petitioner is the evidence of Thiru C.N.Babu, Advocate, who resided opposite the house of Tmt.Jayanthi, but even the evidence of Thiru C.N.Babu does not support the contents of the petition since he himself has deposed that he had no knowledge about the allegations in the petition and therefore, the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable only to be quashed. 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would press into service a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, speaking for the Bench, one of us (Elipe Dharmarao, J.), has held as follows: "Departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against Judicial Officers on the basis of ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous litigants and lawyers." On such arguments, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would pray to allow the writ petition. 15. 15. On the contrary, on the part of the respondents, the learned counsel, by producing the original records before the Court, would argue that in his statement, Thiru C.N.Babu, Advocate has categorically stated about the intimacy between the petitioner and said Jayanthi and therefore, since the petitioner is a Judicial Officer, who is expected to maintain high standards of dignity and morality, there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondents, being the disciplinary authority, to proceed with the charge memo. and would pray to dismiss the writ petition. 16. No doubt, the Judicial Officers should not be made to suffer at the hands of unscrupulous persons. But, in the case on hand, there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental proceedings, which has been rightly resorted to on the part of the respondents. As has already been pointed out supra, when, on an earlier occasion the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by way of W.P.No.4695 of 2009 with same pleadings, the Division Bench of this Court has remitted the matter to the Administrative Committee for its consideration, but the petitioner has not challenged this order and allowed it to reach its finality. Therefore, in due compliance of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4695 of 2009, dated 17.4.2009, the matter was placed before the Administrative Committee on 18.4.2009, which has resolved to call for the explanation from the petitioner. When the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence, instead of submitting the same, he has filed this writ petition, praying to quash the proceedings. 17. On a thorough perusal of the entire materials placed on record, we are able to see that prima facie there is material, touching the moral turpitude of the petitioner, to proceed against the petitioner by the respondents and therefore, they cannot be found fault with in issuing the impugned proceedings. Therefore, we do not feel any necessity to interfere with the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents, at this stage, thus nipping at bud stage the enquiry duly contemplated by the respondents. Therefore, we do not feel any necessity to interfere with the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents, at this stage, thus nipping at bud stage the enquiry duly contemplated by the respondents. The petitioner can very well raise all the contentions raised herein in his explanation and it is for the disciplinary authority to decide the further course of action on such an explanation submitted by the petitioner since being fully competent either to accept or reject the same. Therefore,this writ petition is liable only to be dismissed. 18. However, since the time of 15 days granted in the impugned communication to the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence has already lapsed, we grant two more weeks time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the said memo. and the disciplinary authority is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of written statement of defence from the petitioner. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. No costs.