The Madras High Court has dismissed two judges and a judicial magistrate from service as part of its efforts to overhaul the subordinate judiciary.
While a judge has been compulsorily retired on health grounds, five increments were cut for two metropolitan magistrates.
The decisions in this connection were taken at a Full Court meeting of all judges of the Madras High Court on December 7, a report said.
Former additional district judge (Namakkal), S Manvizhi, ex-principal district judge (Ramanathapuram), T Ponprakash and the then judicial magistrate-I (Krishnagiri), K Vijayakumar were dismissed from service.
Manvizhi, now under suspension and not permitted to retire from service, will face prosecution for various irregularities she has been charged with.
Citing an administrative committee's recommendation to prosecute her under Section 197 of CrPC (related to prosecution) and Prevention of Corruption Act, the Full court said it resolved unanimously that Manvizhi deserved to be dismissed.
The criminal prosecution -sanctioned already- against her may proceed, the Full court said.
In respect of Vijayakumar, the charges against him related to alleged financial embezzlement involving fine amounts were proved and hence dismissed.
He was suspended earlier after alleged irregularities surfaced in 2015.
Ponprakash, who had attained superannuation on reaching 58 years in March 2017, was not allowed to retire and placed under suspension and disciplinary action had been initiated against him.
The Full court, considering the "gravity of charges" against him, decided to dismiss him from service.
A senior civil judge, S Chellapandian, chairman of the Taxation Appeals Tribunal (Madurai) has been compulsorily retired on health grounds after a medical board confirmed his disability to perform judicial functions.
Two metropolitan magistrates in Chennai city were given five increment cuts and the duo shall be under the strict watch of higher authorities, according to the Full court decision.
A former district munsif in Krishnagiri district, though was let off with a censure, the court said, adding she had already been punished with a stoppage of increment.
The Full Court, however, deferred decisions in respect of at least four subordinate judicial officers.
It approved service extension for 17 judicial officers (upto 60 years of age) after perusing their service records and inquiry reports.