2012 (3) TMI 177 - SC - Indian Laws

Invocation of proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India to dispense with the inquiry against the appellant to remove him from service - appellant working as sub-ordinate Judge in Garhwa, Jharkhand alleged of not preparing judgments on his own, rather getting it prepared through some body else before delivering the judgments - appellant challenging legality of order and jurisdiction of High Court Doctrine of pleasure under article 310 - Held that - Under Articles 310 and 311, public servants are given protection from being dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without holding a proper inquiry or giving a hearing. However, proviso (b) to Article 311(2) provides for dispensing of such condition on reasonable and legal grounds. In present case, High Court on basis of facts was of the opinion that holding of such enquiry should be dispensed with in view of the fact that if an enquiry is held the same may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by the appellant. Because of legal and valid grounds there was no necessity of giving him any opportunity of hearing. Subsequent to that, the Governor decided to invoke the provisions of Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India and dispensed with condition of holding enquiry. Thus, procedure and the pre-conditions laid down for invoking the extra-ordinary power under Article 311(2) (b) having been complied with and properly exercised within the parameters of the provisions Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to removal order of a sub-ordinate Judge without an inquiry and violation of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The appellant, a sub-ordinate Judge, challenged his removal order issued by the Governor of Jharkhand based on a resolution of the Full Court recommending his removal. The appellant contended that the High Court did not have the power to dispense with an inquiry before his removal, alleging the order was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was argued that there was no evidence of misconduct and no notice was given before the removal, violating principles of natural justice.

The High Court considered the appellant's submissions and found that the appellant did not prepare judgments on his own, which led to a recommendation for his removal without an inquiry. The Full Court recommended invoking proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution to dispense with the inquiry, and the Governor issued the removal order. The High Court upheld the order, stating that the action was legal under Article 311(2)(b) as it was not reasonably practical to hold an inquiry.

The Constitutional provisions under Articles 309, 310, and 311 were examined. Article 311 provides protection to public servants against punitive actions, with exceptions in cases where an inquiry is impractical or not in the interest of the security of the State. The doctrine of pleasure, recognized under Article 310, allows dismissal subject to the procedure in Article 311. Exceptions in Article 311(2) permit dispensing with an inquiry in certain circumstances, ensuring a balance between the pleasure doctrine and due process.

The High Court's decision to recommend removal without an inquiry was found to be valid, considering the potential impact on the validity of judgments. The Governor's invocation of Article 311(2)(b) was deemed appropriate, as the pre-conditions for dispensing with an inquiry were met. The appellant's argument that the High Court could not invoke Article 311(2)(b) was dismissed, as sub-ordinate Judges fall under the purview of the High Court's authority for appointments and disciplinary actions.

The judgment affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing the High Court's role in maintaining judicial standards and the Governor's authority to act on recommendations under the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs, as no merit was found in the appellant's contentions.