Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

With regard to the second submission we are clearly of opinion that consultation with the Public Service Commission after receipt of the recommendation of the High Court for removal of the officer is not warranted by the provisions of Article 235.

It is true that under Article 235 as well as under the Appointment and Punishment Rules the Governor is the ap- pointing and punishing authority. But under Article 235 the High Court is the sole custodian over the discipline of the judicial officers. There is no warrant for introducing another extraneous body between the Governor and the High Court in the matter of disposal of a disciplinary proceeding against a judicial officer. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that Article 320(3)(c) provides that the Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all disci- plinary matters affecting a person serving under the Govern- ment of a State in a civil capacity. Judicial Officers although holding posts in civil capacity are not serving under the Government of a State. They hold posts in connec- tion with the affairs of the State but are entirely under the jurisdiction of the High Court for the purpose of con- trol and discipline. There is, therefore, no constitution- al justification or sanction for the Governor, even if he wishes, to consult the Public Service Commission under Article 320 (3) (c) in respect of judicial officers. Con- sultation with the Public Service Commission in this case and preference accorded to its advice ignoring the recommen- dation of the High Court have introduced a serious consti- tutional infirmity in the final order of reinstatement passed by the Governor.

The appellants drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Pradvat Kumar Bose v. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court(1) where this Court had to deal with one of the arguments founded on Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution. In the above decision Pradyat Kumar Bose, who was Registrar and Accountant-General of the High Court on its original side and who was the (1) [1955]2 S.C.R. 1331.

appointee of the Chief Justice, was dismissed by the Chief Justice after a full and thorough enquiry held by one of the Judges of the High Court whose findings were accepted by the Chief Justice. Inter alia, it was contended before this Court that the order of dismissal by the Chief Justice was vitiated as the Chief Justice did not consult the State Public Service Commission prior to dismissal of the Regis- trar as provided for under Article 320(3)(c). This Court repelled the contention holding that Article 320(3)(c) was contrary to the implications of Article 229 and the language thereof was also not applicable to the High Court staff since the members of the High Court staff did not serve under the Government of the Union or of the State. It is submitted by the appellants that this court held that Article 320(3) (e) was not applicable since the Chief Justice was the sole appointing and punishing authority so far as the High Court staff was concerned under Article 229 of the Constitution. On a parity of reasoning it is con- tended by the appellants that since the Governor is the sole appointing and punishing authority under the Appointment and Punishment Rules, Article 320(3)(c) is, therefore, clearly attracted, since, according to them, if Article 229 were not there the matter would have been considered by this Court in a different light. We are unable to accept this submission since, as we have pointed out, just as the High Court staff are not serving under the Government of the State, the judicial officers are also not serving under the State Government.

The appellants also relied upon a decision 01 this Court in The High Court, Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy(1). In this case also a submission was made in this Court that the High Court should have consulted the State Public Service Commission in superseding seniority of a Munsif as a result of his exclusion from consideration for promotion in a particular year which resulted in his loss of eight places in the cadre of Subordinate Judges at the time he was actu- ally appointed to act as an Additional Subordinate Judge. The particular officer's case in substance was that this exclusion by the High Court amounted in law to the penalty of "withholding of promotion". It was contended that the High Court should have consulted the State Public Service Commission since article 320(3)(c) contemplated disciplinary matters. This Court disposed of this submission by holding that losing places in a rank was not 'reduction in rank' and that no disciplinary proceedings had been started against the particular officer and hence there could be no occasion for the State Public Service Commission being consulted. It is submitted by the appellants that this Court did not reject the submission based on Article 320(3)(c), out of hand, holding that the Article was not applicable. It is true that the aforesaid submission was disposed of in this particular manner by this Court in the above decision. That however, does not mean that this Court categorically held Article 320(3)(c) was attracted in the case of judicial officers. The question did not arise in that form. (1) [1963] 1 S.C.R.437.

The matter should not be considered from the angle of supremacy of one organ over the other. That will be an entirely erroneous approach. The Constitution reposes certain power in the Governor even under Article 235. He is the authority to pass the order of removal, albeit, on the recommendation of the High Court. That is the constitution- al scheme. The Governor, however, cannot pass any order, as has been done in this case, without reference to the High Court and except on its recommendation. Solution must be found in harmony and not in cold war between the two organs. The Governor could not have-passed any order on the advice of the Public Service Commission in this case. The advice Should be no other authority than the High Court in the matter of judicial officers. This is the plain implication of Article 235. Article 320 (3) (c) is entirely out of place so far as the High Court is concerned dealing with judicial officers. To give any other interpretation to Article 320(3)(c) will be to defeat the supreme object underlying Article 235 of the Constitution specially intend- ed for protection of the judicial officers and necessarily the independence of the subordinate judiciary. It is abso- lutely clear that the Governor cannot consult the Public Service Commission in the case of judicial officers and accept its advice and act according to it. There is no room for any outside body between the Governor and the High Court.