BALDEV RAJ GULIANI & OTHERS versus THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 30-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
425 
BALDEV RAJ GULIANI & OTHERS 
v. 
THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & OTHERS 
August 30, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI & P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950-Art. 235-Di.<ciplinary action over subordinate 
judiciary-Governor-If' bound by the recommendation of the High Court-
Consultation with State Public Service Commission-If warranted by Art. 235. 
A 
B 
Suspended officer reinstated and later compulsorily retired-Effect of-If order 
C 
of suspension merged with order of reinstatement. 
· 
The appellant was a member of the Subordinate Judicial Service of the State. 
On receipt of certain allegations the High Court made a preliminary enquiry and 
the State Government suspended him from service. After the final enquiry the 
High Court recommended to the State Government to remove him from service. 
The State Public Service Commission, on reference by the Government, stated 
that he should be exonerated. On the basis of this recommendation, the Governor 
ordered the appellant's reinstatement; but the High Court did not give him a 
posting on the view that the order of the Governor was illegal because of con-
sultation with the Service Commission and in accepting its advice, disregarding 
the High Court's own recommendation. 
The High Court, therefore, suggested 
to the Government to review its order of reinstatement, but the Government 
did not take any action. 
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High 
Court challenging its refusal to give him a posting. In the meantime the Governor 
compulsorily retired the appellant from service on his attaining 55 years of age. 
Dismissing the writ petition the High Court held that the Governor's order 
!reinstating the appellant was void and non-est because : (i) it was not passed 
in accordance with the provisions of Art. 235 of the Constitution and (ii) the 
Government could not have consulted the Public Service Commission which was 
an extraneous body. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that (i) the 
Governor was not bound by the recommendation of the High Court; (ii) the 
Governor was entitled under Art. 320(3)(c) to consult the Public Service Com-
mission on the question arising out of a disciplinary proceeding; and (iii) since 
the appellant was later compulsorily retired, the order of suspension merged with 
the order of reinstatement, and since no other order of suspension was passed 
thereafter, be was entitled to full salary upto the date of his coinpulsory 
retirement. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: (l)(a) Articles 233 to 237 relating to the subordinate judiciary are 
specially carved out and placed in the safe niche of a separate chapter. For the 
first time in the country's history appeared in the Constitution of India the con-
cept of control over subordin&te courts to vest in the High Courts. But the ap-
pointing authority of a Subordinate Judge under Art. 235 as well as under the 
Appointment Rules, is the Governor. 
Tile High Court, in making its recom-
mendation to the Governor for passing the order of removal, had rightly con-
ceded the authority of the Governor. 
Ordinarily and as a matter of graceful 
routine, recommendati?n~ of t~e f!:igh Court are and sh.ould always be accepted 
by the Governor. Tius 1s ordmarily so and should be m practice the rule as a 
matter of healthy convention. But it will not be correct always to insist that the 
Governor has no authority even under extraordinary circumstances to send the 
matter for reconsideration. 
(434 E; G; DJ 
D 
E 
. F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
(b) The quality of exclusive control of the High Court is not whittled down 
by the constitutional device of all orders being issued in the name of the Governor 
as the head of the State administration. When, therefore, the High Court, exer-
cising disciplinary control, over the subordinate judiciary found, after a proper 
enquiry, that a certain officer was guilty of gross misconduct and was unworthy 
to be retained in judicial service and, therefore, recommended to the Governor 
his removal or dismissal, it is diffic4lt to conceive how and under what circum-
i;tances such a recommendatiori could be rejected by the Governor acting with 
the aid and advice of ministers or, of one of them. 
[434 0-HJ 
The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi [1966] 1 S.C.R. 771; 
and Stute of Haryana v. lnder Prakash Anand H.C.S., and. 01hers [1976] Supp. 
S.C.R. 603. r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.