BARADAKANTA MISHRA versus HIGH COURT OF ORISSA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 06-05-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

( 
-
• ( 
BARADAKANTA MISHRA 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA & ANOTHER 
May 6. 1976 
(A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, jJ.] 
56 l 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 235-Control of Iligh Court over District 
Judges-Appointnient by Governor-Dismissal by High Co'urt-Legality. 
The appellant was appointed a Munsi:ff and promoted as· a Subordinate Judge. 
A 
B 
He was later appointed as Mditional District Magistrate (Judicial) and then as 
C 
a'n .A.dditional District Judge by the Governor of the State. 
As a result .of an 
enquiry into certain charges he was reduced in rank as Additional District 
Magistrate (Judicial) by the High C'Ourt. 
After such reduction, he did not join 
duty. A fresh disciplinary proceeding was, therefore, started against him, and 
after enquiry, the Hij?h Court dismissed him. 
On the same day, the High c·ourt 
passed another order of d:smissal oh the ground that he was convicted on a 
charge of criminal contempt by a judgment of the High Court which was COU· 
firmed by this Court. The appeals against the orders of dismissal were dismiss .. 
ed by the Governor. A writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court 
D 
for quashing the orders was dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal to lhis Court, 
HELD : (l) The control vested in the High Court under Art. 235 over 
district courts ahd courts subordinate thereto includes disciplinary control over 
district Judges and Judges inferior to the post of District Judges. If as a reSult 
of any disciplinary proceeding any punishment is to be imposed on any District 
E 
Judge that has to be in accordance with the conditions of service. The cond~
tions of service in the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1962, framed under Art. 309 provide in r. 14(4) that the appointing authority 
alone can impose the penalties specified in els. (vi) to (ix) of r. 13. 
Clause 
(vi) refers to the penalty of reduction in rank and cl. (ix) to dismissal from 
service. Therefore, under the conditiohs of service, the High Court 
cannot 
reduce in rank or dismiss a District Judge, who has been appointed by the 
Governor. The High Court, within the power and control vested under Art. 235, 
would hold disciplinary proceedings against the District Judge and recommend 
F 
the impositioh of a punishment of reduction in rank on him. But the actual 
power of imposition of one oi' the major punlishment5i, namely reduction in rank, 
is exercisable only by the Governor who is the appointing authority. 
In exer-
cising such special pcwers, the Governor will always have regard to the opinioh 
of the High Court in the matter. Therefore, in the present case, the order passed 
by the Hi2h Court reducing the appellant in rank is unconstitutional. 
[576E-
578C, E-Hl 
G 
(2) (a) The two orders of dismissal based on the order 'of reduction in rahk 
cannot have legal effect because the substratum of the orders of dismissal is 
an unconstitutional order. If the reduction of the appellant is without jurisdic .. 
tion then the appellant is deemed to dontinue as a Distri.ct Judge ahd the 
High Court could not dismiss him.[578C-D] 
(b) There is no question of merger of the orders of the High! Court in the 
orders passed by the Governor. If the order of the initial authority is void 
an order of the appellate authority cannot make it valid. 
The confirmation by 
.the Governor in appeal cannot have any legal effect because it is only that 
which is valid that can be confirmed and not that which is void. 
[578D-EJ 
3f-f::CIJ Oj76 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
A 
State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi [1966] I S.C.R. 771; High 
Courl of Calcutta v. An1al Kun1ar Roy [1963] 1 S.C.R. 437; High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana v. State of Haryana (In the 1natter of N. S. Rao) [1975] 
3 S.C.R. 365: Parshottam Lal Dhi11gra 
v. 
Union of India 
[1958] S.C.R. 
828; Debesh Chandra Das v. Union of India & Others [1970] 1 S.C.R. 220; 
and Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab [1975] I S.C.R. 814, referred 
to. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1512 and 
1513 of 1974. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and Orders dated 
+ 
7th May 1974 and 30th November 1973 of Orissa High Court in 
• 
O.J.C. Nos. 1097 and 1033 of 1973 respectively. 
C 
Purshottam Chatterjee and C. S. S. Rao, for the appellants. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sachin Chaudhary and Vinoo Bhagat, for the respondent No. l. 
Gobind Das and B. Parthasarathi, for respondent No. 2. 
ARG
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.