Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Apparently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court took the view that the order of removal from service could be made by the High Court itself and it was not necessary for the High Court to make its recommendations to the Governor for issuing the order imposing the penalty of removal from service. The appellant challenged the order dated 20.1.19822 made by the High Court removing him from service, in an appeal to the Governor under Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963. By G.O.Ms. No. 534 dated 14.9.1984 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, that appeal was allowed by the Governor on the ground that the High Court is not the competent authority to order the dismissal or removal from service of the Subordinate Judicial Officer. The order also granted all consequential benefits to the appellant.

C.A. No.2165/1989 is by T.Lakshmi Narasimha Chari, the concerned judicial officer, against the judgment of the Full Bench. C.A. Nos.2166/2167/1989 are by the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the same judgment of the Full Bench.

Writ Petition (C) No.331/1994 is by K.David Wilson, another member of the subordinate judiciary in Andhra Pradesh who was removed from service by an order dated 01.12.1993, issued by the High Court after a departmental enquiry into the charges of misconduct against him. He too was a District Munsiff in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service, who was temporarily promoted as a Subordinate Judge, when the order for his removal from service was made by the High Court. In view of the above Full bench decision of the High Court, the petitioner-K. David Wilson has challenged the order of removal from service directly by this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. This writ petition also is being decided by this common judgment since it involves a common question of law for decision namely, the competence of the High Court to itself issue the order of removal from service.

The first question is whether the orders of removal from service issued by the High Court itself against T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari and K. David Wilson are validly made. Admittedly, both these subordinate judicial officers were directly recruited as District Munsiffs and had been confirmed on that post. At the time of removal from service, the substantive rank held by each of them was of a District Munsiffs and they were promoted temporarily as Subordinate Judges. Since their lien was in their substantive rank as District Munsiff, the orders of removal from service had the effect of terminating their service as District Munsiff. The validity of the orders of removal from service made by the High Court has to be adjudged on these facts.

Applying the settled legal principle to the undisputed facts in the case of both these subordinate judicial officers who held the substantive rank of directly appointed District Munsiff at the time of issuance of the order of removal from service by the High Court itself, it is plain that the order of removal from service in the case of each of them had to be made by the Governor and not by the High Court itself. It is equally plain that the recommendation of the High Court for their removal from service after the charges of misconduct were found proved in the disciplinary inquiry, was binding on the Governor who had to issue the order of removal in accordance with the recommendation made by the High Court. Unfortunately the High Court, in spite of the settled legal position, did not adopt the correct procedure for issuance of the order of removal from service of these two judicial officers. The High Court, instead of sending its recommendation to the Governor for issuing the order of removal from service, which would be binding on the Governor, proceeded to issue the order of removal from service itself. The State Government also failed to appreciate the correct legal position and to make amends by issuing the order of removal in the name of Governor treating the action of the High Court as its recommendation for removal from service. Such an action would have corrected the formal defect in the order of removal. Another opportunity to correct the mistake in this manner came when the appeal was filled under Rule 21(2) by the judicial officer. However, that too was missed. It is this error which has enabled these judicial officers to challenge the orders of removal from service.