Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Patti Begari Ramaiah (Died)Khanapuram ... vs The Ap High Court, Hyderabad, Rep. By Its ... on 15 October, 2012
Bench: Goda Raghuram, M.S.Ramachandra Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.4597 of 2012 15.10.2012 Patti Begari Ramaiah (died)Khanapuram Suresh and another The AP High Court, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar General and 4 others <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Rakesh Sanghi Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri S.R.Ashok ?Cases referred 1 This order is reported in Khanapuram Gandiah v. The Administrative Officer, Ranga Reddy... AIR 2009 A.P.174 2 This order is reported in Khanapuram Gandiah Vs. Administrative Officer ... AIR 2010 SC 615 3 AIR 1997 S.C. 2631 4 AIR 1988 SC 1381 5 AIR 2000 S.C. 22 6 AIR 1992 S.C. 165 7 2006 (5) ALT 459 (D.B.) 8 (1998) 5 S.C.C. 493 9 (1995) 1 S.C.C. 203 10 (1978) 2 S.C.C. 102 11 (1978) 2 SCC 102 12 (2003) 8 SCC 117 13 (1998) 1 S.C.C. 1 14 (2000) 2 S.C.C. 391 15 (2010) 10 S.C.C. 320 16 (2009) 8 S.C.C. 106 17 AIR 1988 S.C. 1395 18 (1999) 7 S.C.C 739 19 (2005 ) 1 SCC 132 20 (2007) 4 S.C.C. 247 21 (1999) 7 S.C.C. 409 ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram and Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) The grievance of the petitioners is that their complaints dated 05.11.2006 along with the subsequent complaints dated 11.06.2011 and 13.06.2011 made against the 5th respondent, a judicial officer, who passed an order in CMA.Nos.65-67/2005 while working as the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (to which proceedings they were parties), were not placed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice before the Committee of learned Judges constituting the disciplinary committee of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and seek a direction to do so, to respondents 1-4; and for taking further decision in the matter, in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules.
2. A common order dated 10.08.2006 was passed by the 5th respondent when he was working as Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in C.M.A. Nos.65 of 2005, 66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 in which the petitioners herein were parties. The petitioners allege that the said order is erroneous in fact and in law; the said order was passed by the 5th respondent by not taking into consideration certain documents filed by the petitioners; and that the said officer had taken a bribe . Several statements on the merits of the claim of the parties to the above C.M.As are also pleaded but it is not necessary to deal with the same as the present proceeding is not one where the correctness of the Judicial order of the 5th respondent is challenged.
3. A representation dated 05.11.2006 was made by the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner to the Chairman, A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, Hyderabad, alleging that the 5th respondent was guilty of corruption, the said Officer had helped the petitioners' opponents in the above litigation and the petitioners need to be helped as they are scheduled castes. According to the petitioners, the said complaint/representation dated 05.11.2006 was forwarded by the said Commission vide its letter Rc.No.S3/2197/RR/2006, dated 13.12.2006 to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of A.P. However, no such representation was received by the Registry of the High Court.
4. The father of the 2nd petitioner Late Khanapuram Gandiah filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under S.6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") before the Administrative Officer -cum- Asst. State Public Information Officer under the said Act seeking information as to why the 5th respondent had not considered certain documents and arguments while passing orders in the CMA s mentioned above. This was rejected on 23.11.2006. He then preferred an appeal before the Registrar General of the High Court of A.P. -cum- Appellate Authority under s.19 (1) of the Act. This was rejected on 20.1.2007. He thereupon filed a Second Appeal before the A.P.State Information Commission which also rejected it on 20.11.2007. Challenging the same , he filed W.P.28810/2008 in the High Court of A.P. The writ petition was dismissed on 24.4.20091 holding that authorities discharging judicial functions are not covered under S.4 of the said Act and they are not obliged to provide any information to the applicant under the provisions of the said Act in regard to the decisions taken by them, that the contention of the petitioner therein that the 5th respondent had committed judicial dishonesty by not taking into consideration certain documents filed by the petitioner is raised only with the oblique motive of leveling allegations against the Judge and that it is absolutely unjust and improper. The petitioner therein filed S.L.P. (Civil) No.34868/2009 in the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on dt.4.1.20102 on the ground that a citizen cannot seek information from a Judicial Officer regarding his acts of omissions and commissions in the discharge of his duties as a Judicial Officer and that the 5th respondent was not obliged to furnish any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. The Supreme Court also held that a judicial officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect malicious and corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed if the concerned judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. It held that if anything is done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary and that a judge should be free to make independent decisions.
5. Subsequently another representation dated 11.03.2007 was made by the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner to the Registrar (Vigilance) stating that the fate of the earlier complaint dt.5.11.2006 was not informed to them and that the 5th respondent was corrupt and had taken bribe from their opponents, that when Review Petitions were filed to review the above orders in C.M.A. Nos.65, 66 and 67 of 2005, the 5th respondent commented from the Bench that the review applications and other applications filed along with them will both be dismissed; and that justice must be done to them. The second complaint dated 11.03.2007 was placed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the A.P. High Court who made the following endorsement on the concerned file on 14.7.2007 :
"Perused the record. The allegations made against the officer are unfounded. Be filed."
6. An application dated 13.04.2011 was submitted by the 2nd petitioner to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. ( under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as State Public Information Officer) to inter-alia inform the status of the complaint forwarded to the High Court by the A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, Hyderabad. Vide proceedings in ROC No.160/PIO/JUDL/2011, dated 27.05.2011, the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. informed the petitioners that the earlier representation dated 05.11.2006 made by the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner (which was forwarded to the Registrar (Vigilance), A.P. High Court by the A.P. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission) was not received in the Vigilance Cell of the High Court of A.P.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 made another complaint dated 13.06.2011 to respondents 2, 3 and 4 (enclosing copies of the first complaint dated 05.11.2006 made by the 1st petitioner to the Chairman, A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the letter dated 13.12.2006 of the said Commission forwarding the said complaint to the Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court of A.P.) seeking examination of the alleged misconduct of the 5th respondent. An application dated 11.07.2011 under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 was made by the 3rd petitioner to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. seeking the status of a complaint dated 11.06.2011 (wrongly mentioned as 12.05.2011) made by the 3rd petitioner to respondents 2 to 4. The 3rd respondent vide order in ROC No.805/2007-Vigilance Cell dated 17.09.2011 informed 3rd petitioner that the earlier endorsement of the Hon'ble Chief Justice as mentioned above was reiterated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and that on 17.8.2011 , the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed that the earlier endorsement dt.14.7.2007 be intimated to the petitioners.
8. The petitioners thereafter filed the present writ petition with prayer as adverted to above. Pending the writ petition, the 1st petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 4 and 5.
9. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Venugopal, counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri S.R. Ashok, counsel for the 5th respondent.
10. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations of corruption made by the petitioners against the 5th respondent required to be probed, that the complaint dated 05.11.2006 made by the petitioners was not considered at all by the respondents 1 to 4, that the facts narrated in the first complaint dated 05.11.2006 are different from those narrated in the second complaint dated 11.03.2007 and that under the guise of rejection of the second complaint, the allegations made in the first complaint cannot be ignored without examination of the same on merits by the disciplinary committee/collegium of the High Court of A.P. He also contended that the disciplinary committee consisting of the committee of the Judges appointed by the Full Court comprising all the Judges of the High Court discharging functions under Article 235 of the Constitution of India has to examine the complaint of corruption against a Subordinate Judicial Officer and take a decision and that the rejection of the second complaint dated 11.03.2007 by the then Chief Justice of the High Court cannot prevent examination of the first complaint dated 05.11.2006 by the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court. The petitioners also allege that the 5th respondent was Registrar General of the High Court of A.P. during the relevant period and that he might have somehow ensured that the covering letter dated 13.12.2006 of A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission is misplaced. The counsel for the petitioners also contended that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 was signed by the 4th respondent; that the 4th respondent is not competent to file the counter on behalf of respondents 1 to 3; and therefore the said counter affidavit should be ignored. The petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions :
High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil and another3, Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. M.P. Narayanan and others4, The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shashikant S.Patil and another5, All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India and others6, P.Raghavender Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Registrar (Vigilance) and others7, R.C. Sood Vs. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan and Others8, High Court of M.P. Vs. Mahesh Prakash and Others9, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and Another10.
11. The respondents 1 to 4 contend that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, that Constitutional Courts in this country have time and again held that no reckless allegations ought to be made against a Judicial Officer so that people of the country would have faith in the institution of Judiciary; that the High Court had not received any representation dated 05.11.2006 of the 1st petitioner in its Vigilance Cell from the A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission; that in the event an erroneous or a wrong order is passed by a Presiding Officer of a subordinate court, it is always open for the unsuccessful litigant to carry the matter by way of appeal, revision or review.
The respondents 1 to 4 state that on receiving the complaint dated 11.03.2007, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the complainants to file sworn affidavits attested by a Notary, that after the said affidavits were filed, the original records in C.M.A. Nos.65 to 67 of 2005 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy were called for by the High Court, that the entire matter was considered by the then Chief Justice and the following endorsement was made by his Lordship on 14.07.2007 :
"Perused the record. The allegations made against the officer are unfounded. Be filed."
It was further stated that after receipt of the subsequent complaints dated 13.06.2011 and 11.06.2011 made by the petitioners against the 5th respondent, the matter was again examined by the then Chief Justice on 17.08.2011 who did not differ from the views of the earlier Chief Justice and as per his Lordship's direction, the above endorsement dt.14.7.2007 was informed to the complainants. It is also contended that in none of the complaints made by the petitioners, any details of the alleged corruption/bribe are furnished/specified, such as the date of payment, the amount of payment of bribe or the mode of its payment. In the absence of any such details being furnished by any of the petitioners at any point of time, the Hon'ble Chief Justice while considering the complaints made by the petitioners was justified in stating that the complaints are "unfounded" and in rejecting them. It is contended that unless the Hon'ble Chief Justice is prima-facie satisfied regarding the truth of the allegations leveled against an Officer, there is no need to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee and that the contention of the petitioners that their complaints should be placed either before the Full Court of all the learned Judges or before the appropriate committee is not tenable.
Reference was also made to the order of the High Court in W.P. No.28810/2008 ( 1 supra) and the order of the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. (Civil) No.34867 of 2009 ( 2 supra) stating that a Judicial Officer cannot be compelled to give information in the form of answers to the litigant.
It is also stated that the 5th respondent held the office of Registrar General in the High Court of A.P. from 18.07.2007 to 19.12.2009 whereas the Hon'ble Chief Justice made the endorsements on 14.07.2007 that the allegations against the 5th respondent are unfounded and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent was the Registrar General at a time when representations/complaints dated 05.11.2006 and 11.03.2007 were being examined by the Registrar (Vigilance) and the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is not correct. The respondents also contend that the complaint dated 05.11.2006 was never received from the A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission by the Registrar (Vigilance) and therefore the question of considering the same does not arise.
They also denied the contention of the petitioners that the complaint dated 13.06.2011 was rejected on the basis of rejection of the complaint dated 11.03.2007 and reiterated that the complaints dated 13.06.2011 and 11.06.2011 were both placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice together with the earlier file, that the Hon'ble Chief Justice perused the files and endorsed on 17.08.2011 to intimate the finding as at "A" marked in the note (i.e., the endorsement dated 14.07.2007 mentioned above).
It is also stated that the contents of the complaints dated 11.03.2007 and 05.11.2006 are not different, that both the complaints relate only to one order passed by the 5th respondent, that the substance of both the complaints is that the complainants believed the Officer to be corrupt and when the same act of an Officer is repeatedly complained of at different times, successive Chief Justices are entitled to take note of the fact that the earlier complaint in respect of the same Officer are repeated.
12. The 5th respondent also filed a counter denying the allegations of corruption made against him by the petitioners in respect of orders passed by him in his judicial capacity in C.M.A. Nos.65 to 67 of 2005 and reiterated that the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by him are for higher courts to adjudicate upon. He also stated that he was posted as Registrar General of the High Court and worked in the said post from 17.07.2007 to 21.12.2009 and that he had nothing to do with the misplacement of the first complaint dated 05.11.2006 given by the 1st petitioner and also that he was not the Registrar General at the time when the second complaint dated 11.03.2007 was considered on 14.07.2007 by the then Chief Justice. He also stated that what was complained of in the complaint dated 05.11.2006 was reiterated in the sworn affidavit filed by the petitioners in 2007 and when the latter, which stands on a higher footing than the complaint dated 05.11.2006, was considered and rejected, the petitioners' contention that the complaint dated 05.11.2006 was not considered has no basis. He stated that the petitioners suppressed in the writ petition the fact that they had filed sworn affidavits in 2007 after the second complaint dated 11.03.2007 was submitted by them, that when the second complaint was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on a perusal of the said affidavits, the petitioners cannot contend that the earlier complaint should again be entertained and that it would lead to harassment. He submitted that the intention of the petitioners is to tarnish his character and integrity and if there was any error in the orders passed by him, the same could have been challenged on the judicial side by the petitioners. He also stated that the applications filed for review of the orders in C.M.As. Nos.65 to 67 of 2005 passed by him were rejected by his successor on 26.02.2009 and that he did not decide the review applications.
13. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioners on 19.09.2012 stating that no counter affidavit was filed by the High Court of A.P. in the Writ Petition and only such a counter, when filed, would disclose as to whether the Full Court of the A.P. High Court had passed any resolution authorizing the Hon'ble Chief Justice alone to examine the complaints of corruption against subordinate judicial officers and thereafter to decide as to whether or not, a particular complaint or complaints should be referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court. It is also contended that the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar (Vigilance) arrayed as a party in the W.P. discloses that he is swearing the counter affidavit on behalf of the Registrar (Judicial) arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the W.P. and also on behalf of the Registrar General arrayed as 2nd respondent and that the said counter does not appear to have been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent i.e., the High Court of A.P. It is also stated that the said counter does not appear to have been approved by the Full Court of the High Court of A.P., that therefore it has to be treated that there is no counter affidavit in the W.P. by the High Court of A.P. It is also contended that previously when the matter was posted before a Division Bench consisting of Justice V.V.S. Rao and another learned Judge, Justice V.V.S. Rao had recused himself from hearing this writ petition as he was a member of the Disciplinary Committee of the A.P. High Court and as such when the matter is now listed before us, one of us (i.e., Justice G. Raghuram), who is also a member of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court, ought not to hear this matter more so when the subject matter of this case is not allotted to this Bench as per the roster/sitting arrangement of the A.P. High Court. It is also contended that the Writ Petition should have been posted before another Division Bench of the A.P. High Court who are not members of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court. It is also stated that there is lack of application of mind by the Chief Justices and that they abdicated the responsibility to be discharged by the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India with regard to complaints against subordinate judicial officers.
14. We have considered and the pleadings and documents filed by the parties, the submissions of the counsel for the parties and also the record submitted by the respondents 1-4 with regard to the matter.
15. This writ petition was filed on 29.10.2011 initially arraying the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the A.P. High Court as the 1st respondent. The Registry of the High Court returned the same with an objection inter-alia as to how the Hon'ble Chief Justice can be arrayed as a respondent. The petitioners submitted that actions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side are amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 28.12.2011, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court after hearing the petitioners directed the Registry of the High Court to return the papers after deleting the words "Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court" from the array of the respondents in the writ petition and granted leave to amend the cause title suitably. Thereafter, the cause title was amended showing the 1st respondent as "The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, represented by its Registrar General." So in the array of the parties, apart from the above respondent, the Registrar General, the Registrar (Judicial), the Registrar (Vigilance) and the Officer who passed the order in C.M.A. Nos.65 to 67 of 2005 (impleaded by name) are arrayed as respondents 2 to 5.
16. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has framed Standing Orders covering various aspects relating to administrative and judicial wings of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. These standing orders which were revised in the year 2004 have been framed by a committee of officers at the instance of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Judges and have been approved by the Full Court on 25.2.2004. These standing orders prescribe the duties and responsibilities of various categories of officers. They also indicate the powers to be exercised by officials of the Registry of various levels in stream lining the administration of the High Court.
17. Under these Standing Orders, the Chief Justice is constituted as Head of judiciary with powers of administration of the High Court and administration of justice through out Andhra Pradesh. The Standing Orders lay down that the Registry of the High Court is to be headed by Registrar General and five other Registrars viz., Registrar (Administration), Registrar (Judicial), Registrar (Vigilance), Registrar (Management) and Registrar (Protocol). The Standing Orders lay down that the distribution of work relating to various sections of the Registry, amongst its heads, will be made, from time to time, as per the instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Any subject that is not covered by other Registrars should be dealt by the Registrar General.
18. As per Standing order No.1-3, the Registrar (Vigilance) is to deal with the functioning of the Subordinate Judiciary i.e., vigilance matters, postings and transfers of judicial officers, creation of Courts/posts, statistics, work review of judicial officers, inspections, conferences etc. in relation to the functioning of the subordinate judiciary. It provides that, apart from keeping ready entire data relating to the subjects entrusted to him, the Registrar (Vigilance) shall render necessary assistance to the Disciplinary Committee, in particular, by convening meetings of the said committee and in the administrative committee. He is also to ensure follow up action promptly on all the resolutions taken at the meetings. Importantly, the Registrar (Vigilance) has to file counter affidavits in all Court matters concerning subjects after calling for para-wise remarks of the judicial officers concerned.
19. As per Standing order No.147, the Vigilance cell of the High Court which is under the purview of the Registrar (Vigilance) deals inter-alia with complaints against judicial officers in the State viz., District Judges, Senior Civil Judges, Junior Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrate of First Class and also the Judicial Ministerial Staff. It's functions include among others, the preparation of office notes of complaints received against judicial officers and members of the judicial ministerial staff and suo motu reports from the District Judges, maintenance of dossier registers of judicial officers, preparation of office notes on particular subjects which come up for consideration of the Hon'ble Judges of the Disciplinary Committee and causing advance circulation of the same to the Hon'ble Judges.
20. Standing Order 148 provides that the procedure for processing vigilance matters. Its states as follows:
"S. O. 148: PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING VIGILANCE MATTERS: As per the procedure evolved, whenever a Complaint is received against any District Judge, a Note is to be put up before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. If His Lordship, on considering the same, directs the matter to be placed before any of the Hon'ble Judges for discreet enquiry, the same is to be circulated to the Hon'ble Judge, as proposed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Report transmitted to the Registrar (Vig.) by the Hon'ble Judge will, then, be placed before the Disciplinary Committee after approval of the same by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Action has to be taken according to the Resolutions taken in the Disciplinary Committee Meeting. If the Hon'ble Chief Justice issues any other direction, the same has to be complied with.
If complaints are received against a Senior Civil Judge or a Junior Civil Judge, a Note is to be put up before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. If the Hon'ble the Chief Justice opines to call for a Report from the District Judge, the concerned District Judge is to be addressed to send a Report on the allegations levelled against the Officers. On receipt of the said Report, again the matter is to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. If His Lordship, on considering the same, directs to place the Report and the Complaint before the Disciplinary Committee, the same is to be done. Action has to be taken according to the Resolution of the Disciplinary Committee; otherwise, the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice are to be followed.
On instructions from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Vigilance Cell will also function as 'Intelligence Cell' and makes its own enquires about the misconduct/corruption, if any, in the State Judiciary and place the Report before his Lordships for appropriate Orders."
21. The above procedure laid down in the standing orders is in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. vs. Batuk Deo Patil Tripathi11, Nawal Singh vs. State of U.P.12 and in High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil's case (3 supra) that the control of the Subordinate Judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution of India is vested in the High Court, that after the appointment of the judicial officers by the Governor, the power to transfer, maintain discipline and keep control over them vests in the High Court; that the Chief Justice of the High Court is first among the Judges of the High Court; that action taken is by the High Court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity, nor by the Committee of Judges; and that for convenient transaction of administrative business in the Court, the Full Court of the Judges of the High Court generally pass a resolution authorizing the Chief Justice to constitute various committees including the Committee to deal with the disciplinary matters pertaining to the subordinate judiciary or the ministerial staff working therein.
22. When allegations of the nature set out in the complaints by the petitioners are made against Subordinate Judicial Officers like the 5th respondent, the matter comes within the purview of the Registrar (Vigilance) as per the Standing Orders framed by this Court and approved by the Full court. In view of Standing order no.1-3 which specifically enjoins that the Registrar (Vigilance) has to file counter affidavits in all Court matters concerning his subjects, the Registrar (Vigilance) cannot be said to be incompetent to file the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 in this Writ petition. Moreover, the contents of the Counter affidavit clearly show that it was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 (respondent No.1 being the High Court of A.P. itself) and that it was being sworn on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well i.e., the Registrar General and the Registrar (Judicial). When the Registrar (Vigilance) files a Counter affidavit on behalf of the Registrar General and the Registrar (Judicial) and the Registrar General is also representing the High Court, the counter affidavit has to be treated as a counter affidavit on behalf of the High Court also. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court of A.P. in this writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar (Vigilance) cannot be treated as a counter affidavit on behalf of the High Court is misconceived and accordingly rejected.
23. As regards the contention of the petitioners that this Division Bench ought not to hear this writ petition is concerned, the said contention is not tenable since the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on 16-04-2012 had specifically directed this writ petition to be heard by the Division Bench-III i.e. the Division Bench presided over by one of us (Justice G.Raghuram). It is settled law that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted (see State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand13, R.Rathinam Vs. State14 and State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Chaubey15). So when there is a specific direction of the Chief Justice that this Bench should hear this case, there is nothing improper in this Bench hearing the matter. For the same reason, the petitioner's contention that the subject matter is not allotted to this bench as per roster/sitting arrangements and so it cannot hear it has to be rejected.
24. The basis for the objection of the petitioners that this Bench should not hear this writ petition seems to be the fact that one of us (Justice G.Raghuram) is a Member of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court and the fact that previously Justice V.V.S. Rao (as he then was) had recused himself from hearing this writ petition on the ground that he was a Member of the Disciplinary Committee. According to us this cannot be a ground for this Bench not to hear this writ petition when the issue is whether or not the allegations against the 5th respondent should have been referred by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to the Disciplinary Committee. It is not as if the issue had already been referred to the Disciplinary Committee of which one of us was a Member and the issue is again being considered by this Court on the judicial side. We may point out that after the counter affidavits were served on the counsel for the petitioners in July 2012, time was sought on 31.7.2012, 24.8.2012, 31.8.2012, 3.9.2012 and 18.9.2012 by counsel for the petitioners on various pretexts giving a clear impression that the petitioners somehow or the other wanted to avoid a hearing by this Bench.
25. In R.K.Anand Vs. Delhi High Court16, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the tendency of litigants and members of the Bar making requests to the Benches perceived by them to be not favorable to recuse from hearing a case. At para 263 at pg.192, it quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of the Delhi High Court which was being considered by it.
"The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will while upholding the Constitution and the laws. In a case where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or browbeating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office."
R.K.Anand held that the above course of action should be the courts' response in the face of a request for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the Court or to get better of an "inconvenient" Judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice. It held that a motivated application for recusal needs to be dealt with sternly and should be viewed ordinarily as interference in the due course of justice leading to penal consequences.
26. We have no hesitation to hold that the request of the petitioners that this Bench ought not to hear this case is motivated , without any valid reason and is made with an intention to Bench shopping and to cause obstruction and delay to the proceeding. We strongly deprecate the same.
27. Coming to the main contention of the petitioners that it was incumbent on the part of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer the allegations made by them against the 5th respondent to the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court, it is seen that the petitioners have made an allegation that the 5th respondent had taken a bribe and is corrupt but they have not given any material particulars as to who paid the alleged bribe, when it was paid and in what manner it was paid. This information is lacking not only in the first complaint dated 05-11-2006 (not received by this Court) but also in the second complaint dated 11-03-2007 and in the subsequent representations dated 13-04-2011, 11-06-2011 and 13-06- 2011. It is not even the case of the petitioners that these material particulars have been given in the notarized sworn affidavits given by them for consideration by the High Court after the second complaint dated 11-03-2007 was made by them to the 4th respondent. Merely repeating parrot like an allegation that a judicial officer has taken a bribe or is corrupt, time and again cannot give rise to any inference that the allegation is bonafide. That is why the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 14-07-2007 specifically endorsed that the allegations made against the officer are "unfounded". In other words, the allegations had "no foundation", since no material particulars regarding the alleged bribe or alleged corruption were furnished by the petitioners. In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mahesh Prakash's case (7 supra), it was held that the Chief Justice being the Head of the judiciary in the State and in over all control of its administration, knows better than most of his brother judges about his subordinate judges; His views are entitled to great weight.
28. In the present case, the record reveals that the first complaint dated 05.11.2006, which was said to have been forwarded by the A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission was not received by the Registry of the High Court. On receipt of the complaint dated 11-03-2007, the Hon'ble Chief Justice directed the complainants to file sworn affidavits duly verified by the Notary. Two separate sworn affidavits attested by the Notary were filed by the 1st petitioner and the father of the second petitioner. Thereafter, the original record in C.M.A.Nos.65 to 67 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy was requisitioned and placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for His Lordship's perusal and orders. After considering the same, the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 14-07-2007 endorsed that the record was perused and the allegations made against the officer are unfounded. Again when complaints dated 11-06-2011 and 13-06-2011 were made by the 3rd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner, the matter was again considered by the Chief Justice and on 17-08-2011, His Lordship directed the Registry to intimate to the complainants the findings recorded earlier by the Chief Justice on 14-07-2007. On our request the files relating to these endorsements made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice were placed before us. We are satisfied that the matter was considered elaborately and a conclusion that the allegations against the 5th respondent were unfounded was rightly reached.
29. We are also of the view that each and every complaint bereft of material particulars against members of the subordinate judiciary need not be placed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, for consideration by the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court /Full Court, particularly in view of the provisions contained in Standing Order 148 framed by the High Court set out above.
30. Further , Standing order no.2-13 states as follows:
"S.O.2-13: MATTERS DEALT WITH BY FULL COURT:
a) Framing of Rules and Rulings for Judicial Administration in High Court and Subordinate Courts;
b) Service Rules and Amendments thereon;
c) Annual Calendar for High Court and Subordinate Courts;
d) Designation as Senior Advocates;
e) Decisions/Minutes of Administrative Committee in respect of-