Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
R.M. GURJAR AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 2000 1992 SCR (3) 775
1992 SCC (4) 10 JT 1992 (4) 586
1992 SCALE (2)148
ACT:
Civil Services:
Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1971: Rules 7(3), 18 and 23-Ministerial staff working in
Civil Courts-Disciplinary proceedings-Punishment imposed by
District Judge-Review by High Court under its Administrative
jurisdiction-Enhancement of punishment-Whether valid.
HEADNOTE:
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
appellants who were working in the Civil Courts on the
charge that they falsely identified three persons before a
judicial Magistrate. Both the appellants admitted the
charge against them and prayed for mercy. The District
Judge imposed the penalty of withholding their future
promotions with permanent effect. The High Court, in
exercise of its powers under Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil
Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, enhanced the
penalty to that of removal from service.
The appellants challenged their removal from service,
by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. The High
Court held that under Article 235 of the Constitution of
India, the constitutional control of High Court extended to
the ministerial officers and servants on the establishment
of sub-ordinate courts also. Thus, the removal of the
appellants from service was upheld. Being aggrieved against
the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants
preferred the present appeal by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The High Court was within its jurisdiction on
the administrative side to enhance the punishment of the
appellants in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the
Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971.
2.1. The District Judge, being the Head of office and
the appointing authority of the appellants, was the
disciplinary authority under Rule
776
7(3). The District Judge imposed the punishment of stoppage
of promotion on permanent basis. Reading rules 18(1) and
18(2) together it is obvious that an order imposing the
penalty of stoppage of promotion is appealable and the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
appeal lies before an officer immediately superior to the
officer who made the order. In this case the order having
been made by the District Judge, the appeal would lie to an
officer/authority immediately superior to the District
Judge. The District Judge is under the
administrative control of the High Court. Therefore, the
High Court is the immediate superior authority to the
District Judge and the appeal against the order of the
District Judge in this case would lie to the High Court.
2.2 Rule 23 empowers the appellate authority to
exercise the power of review. It is, thus, clear that the
High Court being the appelate authority had the power to
review the order of the District Judge. Admittedly, the
High Court passed th order enhancing the punishment in
exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the Rules.
State of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977] 2 SCC 12
and The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi,
[1966] 1 SCR 771, relied on.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2107 of
1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.1977 of the
Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2265 of
1974.
S.K. Dholakia and P.C. Kapur for the Appellants.
Anip Schthey and Ms. Rashmi Dhariwal for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. R.M. Gurjar and D.N. Jadhav were
working as junior clerks in the Civil Courts under the
administrative control of District Judge, Broach, Gujarat.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the
charge that they falsely identified three persons before a
Judicial magistrate. At the enquiry both of them admitted
the charge and prayed for mercy. The District Judge by the
order dated June 5, 1974 imposed the penalty of withholding
their future promotions with permanent effect. The High
Court in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of
777
the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971
(the Rules) enhanced the penalty and imposed the punishment
of removal from service. It is not disputed that the High
Court enhanced the penalty after affording opportunity to
the two officials in accordance with law. Gurjar and Jadhav
challenged the order of their removal by way of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
before the High Court. The learned single Judge after
considering the relevant provisions including the historical
background of various constitutional reforms appears to have
been of the view that the source of power to pass the
impugned order lay in the constitutional control of the High
Court under Article 235. However, the difficulty which came
in the way of the learned single Judge to hold so was on
account of the judgment of a Division Bench in Ramesh C.
Mashruvala v. State, (16 G.L.R. 277) wherein the Division
Bench had given a restricted interpretation to Article 235
and had confined its applicability to persons in the
judicial service of the State only. Accordingly, the
learned single Judge, referred the following two questions
to be decided by a larger Bench:
"(1) Whether the High Court on its administrative
side has jurisdiction to enhance the penalty
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
imposed by the District Judge upon a member of the
ministerial staff of the subordinate Court in
exercise of the powers of review conferred by rule
23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1971?
(2) Whether the control vested in the High Courts
under Article 235 of the Constitution is
exercisable only over members of the judicial
service of the State as defined in Article 236 (b)
or whether the ministerial officers and servants on
the establishment of the subordinate courts are
also ultimately subject to such control?"
While the reference was pending before the Full Bench,
the decision in Mashruvala case was set aside by this Court
in State of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977] 2 SCC 12 and
it was held that the Registrar of the Small causes Court was
judicial officer in the judicial service of the State and
came within the scope and intend of Articles 235 and 236 of
the Constitution of India.
778
The Full Bench of the High Court speaking through the
Acting Chief Justice primarily dealt with question No. 2 and
came to the conclusion that the "control" under Article 235
of the Constitution of India extends to the ministerial
officers and servants on the establishment of the
subordinate Courts also. The second question was,
accordingly, answered against the petitioners. On the
interpretation of Article 235 and the rules the first
question was also decided against the petitioners. This
appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of
the Full Bench of the High Court.
From the judgment of the Full Bench it transpires that
though the Bench entered into lengthy discussion on the
interpretation of the constitutional provisions contained in
chapter VI of the Constitution it did not elaborately deal
with the relevant rules which have a direct bearing on the
first question. We, therefore, consider it desirable at
this stage, to first deal with the relevant provisions of
the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1971. The relevant rules are extracted hereunder:
Rules 7,18,21 and 23 of the Rules are as under:
"7(1).............
(2)............
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rules
(1) and (2), Heads of Departments and Heads of Offices
may impose any of the penalties mentioned in rule 6
upon any Government servant of subordinate or
inferior service serving under them whom they have
power to appoint.
(4)............
18. Orders against which appeal lies - (1) Subject
to the provisions of rule 22, a Government servant
may prefer an appeal against all or any of the
following orders, namely:-
(i) an order of suspension made or demand to have
been made under rule 5.
(ii) an order imposing any of the penalties
specified in rule 6 whether made by the
Disciplinary Authority or by any appellate
779
or reviewing authority.
(iii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under
rule 6.
(iv).............
(d) has the effect of his non-promotion to a higher
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
post, or
18(2) An appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall
lie to an officer immediately superior to the
officer who made the order:
................................
21(1)...........
(2) In the case of an appeal against an order
imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 6,
or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said
rule, the appellate authority shall consider :
....................................................
(d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive,
adequate or inadequate, and, after consultation
with the Commission, if such consultation is
necessary in the case, pass orders-
(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or
enhancing the penalty, or
(ii).............
Provided that-
(i)................
(ii) on order for enhancing the penalty shall be
passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity
of making any representation which he may wish to
make against such enhanced penalty, and
...................................................
23. Review of orders in disciplinary cases. The
authority to
780
which an appeal against an order imposing any of
the penalties specified in rule 6 lies may, of its
own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any
proceeding under these rules and review any order
passed in such a case and, may after consultation
with the Commission where such consultation is
necessary, pass such order as it deems fit as if
the Government servant had preferred an appeal
against such order:
Provided that no action under this rule shall be
taken after the expiry of a period of more than six
months from the date of such order."
The District Judge, being the Head of office and the
appointing authority of the appellants, was the disciplinary
authority under rule 7(3) of the Rules. The District Judge
imposed the punishment of stoppage of promotion on permanent
basis. Reading rule 18(1) and 18(2) of the Rules together it
is obvious that an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of
promotion is appealable and the appeal lies before an
officer immediately superior to the officer who made the
order. In this case the order having been made by the
District Judge, the appeal would lie to an officer/authority
immediately superior to the district judge. The district
judge is under the administrative control of the High Court.
The nature and extent of control which vests in the High
Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India has
been authoritatively determined by this Court in The State
of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, [1966] 1 SCR 771.
Therefore, undisputably, the High Court is the immediate
superior authority to the district judge and the appeal
against the order of the district judge in this case would
lie to the High Court. Rule 23 of the Rules empowers the
appellate authority to exercise the power of review. It is,
thus, clear on the plain reading or the Rules that the High
Court being the appellate authority had the power to review
the order of the District Judge. Admittedly, the High Court
passed the order enhancing the punishment in exercise of its
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
powers under rule 23 of the Rules. Therefore, we hold that
the High Court was within its jurisdiction on the
administrative side to enhance the punishment of the
appellants in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the
Rules.
On the interpretation placed by us on the Rules, the
answer to the first question has to be in the affirmative.
We are also of the opinion that
781
the answer to the second question as rendered by the Full
Bench of the High Court is unexceptionable and does not call
for any interference. The appeal consequently fails and is
dismissed but with no order as to costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
782