DEV SINGH & ORS. versus REGISTRAR, PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 15-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DEV SINGH & ORS. 
A 
v. 
-.f REGISTRAR, PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT & ORS. 
APRil: 15, 1987 
[R.S. PATIIAK C.J. AND V. KHALID, J.] 
B 
• 
· 
· 
Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court Vol. I, Chapter 18-A, 
Rules IX and X: Dismissal of ministerial staff of subordinate courts by 
District Judge-Service appeal disposed of by High Court-Whether 
judicial decision. 
c 
Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 235: Removal from service 
of ministerial staff by District Judge-Service appeal dismissed by High 
_J,fourt-Decision whether judicial or administrative-Whether assail-
able in petition for special leave. 
· 
Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 con-
D 
fers power of appointment of ministerial officers of all courts controlled 
by a District Court and their suspension and removal on the District 
Court. Sub-section (3) makes every appointment subject to such rules 
as the High Court may prescribe in this behalf, while sub-section (4) 
; -f111akes orders passed by the District Judge subject to the control of the 
High Court. 
. 
E 
• 
Chapter 18-A of the High Court Rules and Orders framed under 
Section 35(3) conttols the appointments, promotion and punishment of 
J>_. ministerial officials in the District and other civil courts, other than the 
High Court. Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule IX in that Chapter enables the Dis-
trict Judge to inflict any of the penalties mentioned in sub-rule (1): 
.,.)censure, fine, recovery of any pecuniary loss, withholding of increments 
or promotions, suspension, removal and dismissal of the ministerial 
officers of his own court or any court subordinate to him other than the 
Court of Small Causes. Sub-rule (2) of Rule X provides Ior appeals to 
F 
the High Court against penalties. Sub-rule (3) requires the persons 
appea.ling to the High Court to do so by a petition to the District Judge, G 
who shall forward the same to the Registrar of the High Court with 
--.( remarks that !ie may wish to make. After reading the petition the High 
Court may either (a) summarily reject it without hearing the petitioner; 
(b) refer it to the District Judge for report and on receipt of such report 
reject the petition without hearing; or (c) hear the petitioner, and where 
other persons are held to be concerned such other person in open court. 
H 
1005 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
t19s1J 2 s.c.R. 
A Sub-rule (4) forbids the petitioners to attend personally at the High 
Court unless summoned and provides for communication to them of 
orders on their petitions through the District Judge. 
The appellants, who were the employees in the ministerial estab-
. lishment of the courts at Ferozepur and Zlra, were alleged to have 
B taken a prominent part in raising objectionable slogans against the · 
Judicial Magistrate and the District Judge, in a d@monstrati11n orga· 
nised by the subordinate court officials, to protest against the slapping 
of a subordinate by the Judicial Magistrate, Zira. They were charge· 
sheeted for their misconduct. After enquiry it was found that they 
contravened Rule 7(1) of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 
1966 by acting prejudicially to the public order, decency and morality 
· C and were dismissed from service by the. District judge in his capacity as 
the punishing authority. 
D 
E 
The appellants preferred a service appeal before the High Court 
which was dismissed. 
While granting the special leave on 2nd April, 1982 this Court 
made the following order: 
"Appeal will be heard ....... on the preliminary issue as to 
whether the High Court in disposal of appeal was acting in 
administrative capacity under Art. 235 or as a Tribunal or as a 
High Court and the circumstances in which the appeal was main· 
tained, if so." 
--t 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the decision of 
the High Court in this case was the judicial decision of a tribunal which 
J' could be examined by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
~ 
~ismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The appeal is not maintainable. Ev•ry decision or 
order by an authority which has a duty to act judicially is not subject to 
G appeal to this Court. Article 136 contemplates appeals only from adjudica· 
·lions, of courts and tribunals. Such adjudication must doubtless be judicial. 
'r"
If the 'power exercised was administrative in nature it would exclude such a 
tribunal from the ambit of Article 136. [1029C; 1028H; 10200] 
1.2 Every authority which is required to ac

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