9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Chief Justice to dismiss the appellant. 2. Delegation of the enquiry into charges. 3. Requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c). 4. Maintainability of a writ application against the Chief Justice's order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of the Chief Justice to Dismiss the Appellant: The appellant argued that the Chief Justice lacked the power to dismiss him. This argument was based on the assumption that the appellant was governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which allegedly continued to apply after the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of India, 1950. The Court examined the historical context, noting that the Letters Patent of 1865 vested the power of appointment in the Chief Justice and implied the power of dismissal. The Government of India Act, 1935, and the Constitution of 1950, reinforced this by explicitly vesting the power of appointment and regulation of service conditions, including dismissal, in the Chief Justice. The Court concluded that the Chief Justice had the authority to dismiss the appellant, as supported by Section 16 of the General Clauses Act and Article 229(1) of the Constitution. 2. Delegation of the Enquiry into Charges: The appellant contended that the Chief Justice could not delegate the enquiry into the charges to another Judge. The Court clarified that the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is administrative, not judicial. It is permissible for a statutory functionary to delegate the enquiry to a competent official without delegating the ultimate responsibility. The Court cited precedents, including *Board of Education v. Rice* and *Local Government Board v. Arlidge*, to support the view that obtaining materials through delegation is acceptable as long as the affected party has a fair opportunity to respond. Thus, the delegation to Mr. Justice Das Gupta was valid. 3. Requirement of Consultation with the Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c): The appellant argued that the dismissal was invalid without prior consultation with the Public Service Commission, as required by Article 320(3)(c). The Court examined whether the appellant, as a member of the High Court staff, fell within the scope of "a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity." The Court noted that the administrative control of High Court staff is vested in the Chief Justice, not the executive government. The terminology used in various constitutional provisions indicated a demarcation between High Court staff and other civil services. The Court concluded that Article 320(3)(c) did not apply to High Court staff, and prior consultation with the Public Service Commission was not necessary. 4. Maintainability of a Writ Application against the Chief Justice's Order: The respondent argued that no writ could issue from the High Court against its own Chief Justice and that the order was administrative, not judicial. The Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the appellant's contentions regarding the validity of the dismissal order were not substantiated. The Court, however, noted that the exercise of administrative power, such as dismissal, does not necessarily preclude the availability of a remedy under Article 226 in an appropriate case, but expressed no opinion on the maintainability of the writ in this specific instance. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the application for leave to appeal under Article 136 was also rejected. The Court upheld the Chief Justice's authority to dismiss the appellant, validated the delegation of the enquiry, and found that prior consultation with the Public Service Commission was not required.
|
