AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Anand, C.J.—The termination of services of the appellant serving at the relevant time as a Judicial First class Magistrate, by the
Governor, on the recommendation of the High Court was called in question by the appellant through W.P.No.528 of 1990. The Writ Petition was
dismissed by a learned single Judge on 16.2.1991, giving rise to the filing of this appeal.
The High Court had made a recommendation to the Governor to terminate the services of the appellant when during a departmental enquiry
ordered by the High Court and conducted by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, under directions of the High Court, it was found that the
charges against the appellant inter alia of demanding, receiving and accepting bribe from certain persons, while discharging his functions as a
Judicial Magistrate had been established. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was considered by the High Court and after following the
formalities required by law, was accepted by the High Court. On the acceptance of the report, as already noticed, a recommendation was made to
the Governor to terminate the services of the appellant.
Various contentions raised before the single Judge have been reiterated by the appellant before us.
The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the departmental enquiry should have been conducted by the High Court
itself or that at least one of the Judges of the High Court should have conducted the departmental enquiry and that the conduct of the enquiry could
not have been entrusted to a district Judge as the disciplinary authority could not delegate its powers to the District Judge. The learned single Judge
rightly rejected the argument. It is a recognised principle of administrative jurisprudence that a statutory functionary exercising administrative
powers does not delegate its functions merely by deputing a responsible and a competent officer to collect materials during a departmental enquiry
and submit his report. This is the ordinary mode by which administrative power is exercised. The High Court had appointed the Enquiry Officer,
who was to collect the material and after enquiry, submit a report. The report was considered by the High Court as such. The recommendation
was made by the High Court itself after accepting that report. The High Court, therefore, delegated no power to the Principal District Judge, but
only delegated certain functions by deputing him to enquire and report. Learned Counsel has failed to notice the distinction between delegation of
certain administrative job and delegation of power. The appellant had a fair opportunity during the enquiry and even subsequently, when the report
was considered and the explanation of the appellant was taken into account by the High Court before recommending termination of the services of
the appellant to the Governor. The first argument, therefore, has no force.
It was next argued by the learned Counsel that action against the appellant could only be taken by the Government since at the relevant time, he
was only working as a ""borrowed"" Judicial Magistrate. The argument is futile. The appellant had retained no lien in the Secretariat. On his own
admission in the writ affidavit, he had been regularised in the judicial service and at the time when the order, impugned in the writ petition, was
made, he was a regular Judicial Magistrate, First Class, borne on the cadre of the judiciary. The argument, therefore, has no merit.
The last argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the opinion of the High Court, which is not the appointing authority, ought
not to have been considered by the Governor and that the Governor should have decided the case de hors the ''recommendation'' of the High
Court and that the High Court could not ''recommend'' the termination of the services of the appellant. It was also suggested that the disciplinary
enquiry should have been ordered by the Governor and not the High Court. We cannot agree.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, , dealt with the ambit and extent of the
disciplinary control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary and opined that the High Court is the sole custodian of ''control'' over the
judiciary and that ''control includes something in addition to mere superintendence. It is the ''control'' over the conduct and discipline of the
Subordinate Judges and that the ''control'' which is vested in the High Court is ""a complete control"" subject only to the power of the Governor, in
the matter of appointment, including dismissal and removal. This view was reiterated in State of Haryana Vs. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. and
Others, , wherein after elaborating the scope of the word ''control'' the Court opined that if in a given case the High Court is of the opinion that a
particular Judicial Officer is not fit to be retained in service, the High Court will communicate that opinion to the Governor who, under the
Constitution, is the authority to dismiss, remove, reduce in rank or terminate the appointment of such Judicial Officers and the recommendation
made by the High Court will be accepted by the Governor.
Again, the Baldev Raj Guliani Vs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others, emphasis was laid by the Supreme Court on the concept of
''control'' of the High Court over the Subordinate Courts and while answering the question as to whether the Governor is bound, under the
Constitution, to accept the recommendation of the High Court and pass an order of removal of a Judicial Officer, if so recommended, the Supreme
Court observed that when the High Court exercising disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary finds, after proper enquiry, that a certain
officer is guilty of gross misconduct and is unfit to be retained in service and, therefore, recommends to the Governor his removal or dismissal, such
recommendation of the High Court in respect of the judicial officer ""should always be accepted by the Governor.
In Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others, , the apex court once again reiterated that the ''control'' vested
in the High Court being exclusive and not dual, an enquiry into the conduct of a member of the judiciary can be ordered by the High Court alone
and by no other authority.
The law is, thus, well settled that the High Court has the exclusive disciplinary ''control'' over the subordinate judiciary, which includes
proceeding against such an officer departmentally, and that if the High Court, while exercising disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary
finds, after a proper enquiry, that the officer is unfit to be retained in service, it shall make a recommendation to the Governor to pass the
appropriate order. In view of the all pervasive control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary, the recommendation of the High Court
should always be accepted by the Governor"".
The complaint regarding the delay in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, in our view, is only an argument of despair, since no prejudice
was either alleged or established to have been caused to the appellant by that alleged delay and the evidence on record, which was carefully
scrutinised by the enquiring authority and thereafter by the disciplinary authority and later on by the learned single Judge, established beyond any
doubt the charges of corruption against the appellant.
Learned Counsel then made a feeble attempt to say that the recommendation of the High Court was vitated by mala fides. The argument needs
a notice only to be rejected. It was at a meeting of the Judges of the High Court that the report of the Enquiry Officer came to be considered and a
decision was taken in their collective wisdom to make a recommendation to the Governor for termination of the services of the appellant on being
satisfied that the charges of corruption had been established against him. Allegations of mala fide against the collective body of Judges of the High
Court are totally meaningless and even otherwise are based on no factual foundations in the writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon certain judgments in support of his submissions and we may now briefly refer to those
judgments.
In Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1977 N.O.C. 279 (All), a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the
question as to whether the decision of the administrative committee in matters of administration and disciplinary control could be treated to be the
decision of the Full Court and opined in the negative. This case has no relevance to the instant case where it was the Full Court which had made
the recommendation in its collective wisdom to the Governor.
Reliance placed on Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board (1953) 1 All E.R. 1113, Vine v. National Dock Harbour Board (1956) 3 All
E.R. 939, and on Lingam v. Minister of Agriculture (1948) 1 All. E.R. 781, is totally misplaced as the Court of Appeal was considering specific
rules and regulations under various statutes. They have no relevance to the case on hand.
M. Chinnappa Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , on which also reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the
appellant cannot advance the case of the appellant because the judgment has no semblance of applicability to the facts of the present case. It was
the indication of the proposed punishment in the memo of charges which was frowned upon in that case.
Pradyat Kumar Bose Vs. The Hon''ble The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, , on which also reliance has been placed, expressly declared
that though no ''judicial tribunal'' can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implication, the exercise of the
power ""to appoint or dismiss an officer is the exercise not of judicial power but of administrative power"". The Supreme Court went on to hold:
...It is well recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a
responsible and competent official to enquire and report. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be
delegated except where the law specifically so provides is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power. A functionary who has to
decide an administrative matter, such as the dismissal of a member of the staff, can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may
be feasible and convenient, provided only the affected party has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and prejudicial material.
This judgment, therefore, instead of supporting the cause of the appellant, totally negatives what has been argued on his behalf and lends support to
the judgment of the learned single Judge.
No other point was argued.
Thus, for what we have said above, we have not been persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the learned single Judge who
rightly dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal consequently fails and is dismissed in limine.