9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of powers and functions of the Governor under the Constitution. 2. Termination of services of probationers in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). 3. Interpretation of Article 311(2) and its proviso (c). 4. The role of the High Court in controlling the subordinate judiciary. 5. The concept of personal satisfaction of the President or Governor. Detailed Analysis: 1. Exercise of Powers and Functions of the Governor Under the Constitution: The appellants contended that the Governor must personally exercise powers of appointment and removal of subordinate judicial service members. The State argued that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The judgment clarified that the President and the Governor are constitutional heads and exercise powers conferred by the Constitution on the aid and advice of their respective Councils of Ministers, except in specific situations where they are required to act in their discretion. The satisfaction required by the Constitution is not personal but is the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense, which is essentially the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers. 2. Termination of Services of Probationers in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch): The services of Shamsher Singh and Ishwar Chand Agarwal were terminated under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and Rule 7(3) in Part D of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, respectively. The Court held that the Governor's power to remove subordinate judges is an executive function exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The termination of services of probationers must comply with the relevant rules and cannot be arbitrary or punitive without following due process. 3. Interpretation of Article 311(2) and its Proviso (c): The appellants relied on the decision in Sardari Lal v. Union of India, which held that the satisfaction of the President or Governor under Article 311(2) proviso (c) is personal. The Court overruled this interpretation, stating that the satisfaction required by the Constitution is the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense, which is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers. The decision in Sardari Lal was not consistent with the established view that the President and Governor act on the aid and advice of their respective Councils of Ministers. 4. The Role of the High Court in Controlling the Subordinate Judiciary: The High Court's role in controlling the subordinate judiciary was emphasized. The High Court should conduct inquiries into allegations against judicial officers through judicial officers subordinate to its control, rather than through government agencies like the Vigilance Department. The High Court's failure to do so in the case of Ishwar Chand Agarwal led to the conclusion that the termination of his services was by way of punishment and violated Article 311. 5. The Concept of Personal Satisfaction of the President or Governor: The judgment clarified that the concept of personal satisfaction of the President or Governor, as interpreted in Sardari Lal, was incorrect. The President and Governor exercise their powers and functions on the aid and advice of their Councils of Ministers, except in specific situations where they are required to act in their discretion. The satisfaction required by the Constitution is not personal but is the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense, which is essentially the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the President and the Governor act on the aid and advice of their respective Councils of Ministers in all executive actions, except in specific situations where they are required to act in their discretion. The termination of services of probationers must comply with the relevant rules and cannot be arbitrary or punitive without following due process. The High Court has a significant role in controlling the subordinate judiciary and must conduct inquiries into allegations against judicial officers through judicial officers subordinate to its control. The concept of personal satisfaction of the President or Governor, as interpreted in Sardari Lal, was overruled. The orders of termination of the services of the appellants were set aside, and the appellants were entitled to relief as specified.
|
