HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus SHIRISH KUMAR RANGRAO PATIL AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1131 · Decided: 30-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 
v. 
SHIRISH KUMAR RANGRAO PATIL AND ANR. 
APRIL 30, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Dismissa/-<Jross misconduct-Corrupt practic-Allegation of C 
demand of illegal gratification by a judicial officer-Inquiry-Committee of 
judges accepting the finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry Office,.-Commit-
tee making recommendation for dismissa/-<Jovemor passing the dismissal 
order-Validity of 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 235-Authority of the High Court D 
to control subordinate courts-Held, Committee of Judges making recommen-
dation for dismissal acted on behalf of the High Court-Held, Governor being 
the competent authority to impose punishment he validly and legally passed 
the dismissal order. 
The first respondent was working as a probationer Civil Judge, 
Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. He was charged with 
_if1!PUtation that he had demanded illegal gratification from an Advocate · 
for deciding in his favour and thereby he indulged in corrupt practice 
which amounted to gross misconduct. Other allegations were also made 
against him. 
In an inquiry against the respondent, the Inquiry Officer found most 
of the charges proved. Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent. 
E 
F 
He submitted his representation. The Committee of five Judges (con-
stituted by the High Court), of which four met, accepted the findings of G 
guilt recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Committee recommended the 
Government for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Accord-
ingly, the State Government directed the respondent's dismissal from 
service. 
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High H 
1131 
1132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A Court challenging the order of the dismissal. The High Court set aside the 
order of dismissal. It took the view that final decision should have been 
taken by the Full Court. Hence this Appeal. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Full Court having 
authorised the committee of Five Judges to take decision, such a decision 
B by the Committee was taken on behalf of the High Court. The High Court 
advised the Governor that the delinquent officer committed misconduct 
and was liable to be dismissed from service. The Government accepted the 
same and dismissed the respondent from service. The ultimate decision of 
dismissal is of the Government and not of the High Court. The High Court 
C was clearly in error in treating the report of the Committee as non est. 
D 
E 
F 
On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that recommendation was 
made only by four Judges in the Committee of five. It was quomm non 
juridicus. The recommendation for dismissal was not in accordance with 
law. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : Per K Ramaswamy, J. (Wadhwa, J. concerning but not 
associating with the views expressed by Ramaswamy, J. on corruption) : 
1.1 The control of the subordinate judiciary is vested in the High 
Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Committee of Judges 
is authorised by the Full Court and acts on its behalf. The action is taken 
by the High Court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity 
nor by the Committee of Judges.[1139-F-H] 
1.2. The Appointing Authority, viz., the Governor, is the competent 
authority to impose punishment. The High Court has no power to impose 
any punishment by itself. [1140-G] 
Shamsher Singh v. Punjab and Anr., [1974] 2 SCC 831; The Registrar, 
G High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah, [1988] 3 SCC 211 and High Court of 
MP. v. Mahesh Prakash & Ors., AIR (1994) SC 2595, relied on. 
2.1. The majority of the four Judges of the Committee, even in the 
absence of express resolution does constitute a quorum and is competent 
to transact the administrative business of the Court. In the absence of 
H dissent from the decision taken per majority, the fifth member also must 
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYv. S.K.R. PATIL[K. RAMASWAMY,J.] 
1133 
be deemed to have agreed to the decision of the majority. [1141-E·H] 
A 
2.2. Even if there is any irregularity in the procedure, i.e., absence of 
a Judge, it does not vitiate the order of dismissal by any error of law. 
[1142-B] 
3.1. The Division Bench committed an error of law in holding that 
the order of respondent's dismissal from service is beset with illegality. All 
the four Judges unanimously recommended to the Government to impose 

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