Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In Pradyat Kumar v. C.J. of Calcutta, , it was held that where charges were made against a member of the staff of the High court, the Chief Justice was competent to delegate to another Judge the enquiry into the charges. The Supreme court overruled the contention that the Chief Justice could not delegate to another Judge the conduct of the enquiry. IN this context, head note B to the decision reads as follows : "It is true that the no judicial Tribunal can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implication. But the exercise of the power to appoint or dismiss an officer is exercise not of judicial power but of an administrative power. It is nonetheless so, be reason of the fact that an opportunity to show cause and an enquiry simulating judicial standards have to precede the exercise thereof. It is well recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be said to have deleted his functions merely be deputing a responsible and competent official to enquiry and report. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. What cannot be delegated except where the law specifically so provides is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power. A functionary who has to decide an administrative matter, such as the dismissal of a member of the staff, can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible and convenient, provided only the affected party has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant and prejudicial material. Where, therefore, charges are made against a member of the staff of the High Court, the Chief Justice is competent to delegate to another Judge the inquiry into the charges". I am unable to understand how this decision gives support to the contention of the learned counsel for the management. This decision goes only to the extent of saying that it will be open to a punishing authority to obtain the material on which he has to act in such a manner by delegating the function of holding a fact finding enquiry to another authority. The Supreme Court was careful enough to point out in this case that what can be delegated is only the power to enquiry and report. The Supreme Court made it clear specifically that what cannot be delegated - except where law specifically so provides - is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power.