Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Batuk Deo Patil Tripathi & Anr on 21 February, 1978
"This article shows that the High Court has to exercise its administrative,
judicial and disciplinary control over the members of the Judicial Service
of the State. The word "control", referred to in this article, is used in a
comprehensive sense to include general superintendence of the working of
the subordinate courts, disciplinary control over the Presiding Officers of
the subordinate courts and to recommend the imposition of punishment of
dismissal, removal and reduction in rank or compulsory retirement.
"Control" would also include suspension of a member of the Judicial Service
for purposes of holding a disciplinary enquiry, transfer, confirmation and
promotion. (See State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand and State of U.P.
v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi).
Article 234 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 233 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr on 19 February, 1998
On going through the judgments of this Court right from Shyam Lai v. State
of U.P., [1955] 1 SCR 26 down to High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v.
Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr, [1998] 3 SCC 72, one cannot but reach one
conclusion regarding the power of the High Court in the matter of ordering
compulsory retirement. That conclusion is that the High Courts are vested
with the disciplinary control as well as administrative control over the
Members of the Judicial Service exclusively, but that does not mean that
they can also pass orders of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or
termination from service while exercising administrative and disciplinary
control over the Members of Judicial Service. Undoubtedly, the High Courts
alone are entitled to initiate, to hold enquiry and to take a decision in
respect of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from
service, but the formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be
passed only by the State Governor on the recommendation of the High Court.
State Of Haryana vs Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & Others on 7 May, 1976
After the recommendation of the Full Court was received, the Government on
2.12.91 chose not to proceed further on the plea that the matter was
pending in the Supreme Court. They declined to act further on the
recommendation. This, the Government could not have done. The course open
to the Government was to forward the recommendation of the High Court to
the Governor who would have passed an order in accordance with the
recommendation made by the High Court as has been held in Inder Prakash
Anand's case (supra) because the recommendation of the High Court was
binding on the Government.
Chief Justice Of A.P. & Anr vs L.V.A. Dikshitulu & Ors on 12 September, 1978
The State Of West Bengal vs Nripendra Nath Bagchi on 10 September, 1965
State Of Gujarat vs Ramesh Chandra Mashruwala on 21 January, 1977
In State of Gujarat v. Ramesh Chandra
Mashruwala it was held that "control" in Article 235 means exclusive and
not dual control.