LexHLGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 365 HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ETC. l'. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC. January 24, 1975 [A. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND Y. v. CHANDRACHUD, JJ .J Constitwion of India 1950, Article 233, 234 a11d 235-"Contro/ orer district u'.urts a11d Co11.rts .111h-ordi1111te ther1•to"-"Cflwro::', 111<•1111i11g of-Co11firmatio11 .01 pe1·sons appo111ted to be District J11dge.1·, if lilithin the co11trol of Hig/1 Court. Constitution of /11di"· 1950, Article 235 11111/ Puniab S11perior Judlcial Sen•ice !Rules, 1963, Rufr IO-Pro111otio11 of a person to·he District J11dge-R11/c co11fer- fi11g poll'er of co11finw1tio11 011 the Govem?'" ifi valid. Constit11tio11 of /11di11. 1950, Article 235 and P11ni"b Ciril Serrice (P11ni.1hmenr 1111£1 Appe11/ J R11.'es. R11/e 9-Di.\"cip/i11ary proceedings agai11st District Judges- ~11q111ry by Gorcm111c11t ll'ithout tl1e conc111n11ce of High Court, if 1·11/id. Before Rao 1rns appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge under Rul~ 9 .of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules I 963. he wus functioning as a D1stnct Attorney. He assumed charge and completed two years of probation. 0 On the receipt of the complaint against him, the High Court entruited to Justice Gurnam Sing~ :1n cnquirr i~to the complaint. Rao was tr~1nsferred to A!11ba1~ and later to Kamal as D1stncl and Sessions Judge. The High Court considered the report of .lustic~ Gurnam Singh who cume to the conclmion thut the charges uguinst Rao were not substantiated. On J 9 April, 197~ the High Court promoted Rao as purmuncnt District and Sessions Judge, with effect from Murch ·30, 1973. The Government on the same day wrote to the High Court. saying that the view of the High Court about competency to confirm District and Sessions Judges was .legally. untenable. The High Court was requested to reconsider the matter and E the i~suance of notification confirming Rao WH! withheld. Un 4 May, 1973 the High Court confirmed Rao as District and Sessions Judge with effect from July 7. 1972 on which date he completed the period of probation. On 1\-lay 26. I 973 the Governm~nt wrote to the High Court stating that the Government did not reco- gnise the order of confirmation issued by the High Court. The Government fur- ther said thllflfao would be deemed to_ be under extended period of probation. The Governn1ent said that the HiglfCourt wo11ld.li_e-welL1d,.ised to re"iew their _ carlicr-·decision:.:i11d--send·the ·requisite record without any further delay. On I June, 1973 the Co1ernment wrote to the High Court saying that the Government F were of opinion that in view of the probationary period of Rao having been found !o be unsatisfactory he was not fit to be retained on the post of District/Additional District and Sessions Judge and should be reverted to his sub3tantive post of Dis- trict Attorney. The Government further requested the High Court that the matter might be placed before the Judges immediately so that the views of the High Court would be available to the Governor before the High Court went into vacation. On 2 June. 1973 the High Court replied that the matter was under consideration of !he Judg~s and their views would be communicated to the State Government early. G The vacation commenced on 2 June, 1973. On 12 June. 1973 the Government wrote to the High Court saying that if the views of the High Court were not re· ceived, the State Government would have no alternative but to take a final de· cision. On 14 June. 1973 the High Court wrote to the Government that reply would be sent after the reopening of the High Comt. The High Court. reope~ed on 15 Julv. 1973. On 21 June. 1973 the Governor wrote n note approvmg actton propcised by the Council of Ministe.rs. There was a gazette notification reverting Rao from the post of District and Sessions Judge. Amba!a to his former nost of District Attornev. Rao challenged the order of the Governor in an application H under ;A.rticle 226 in the High Court. The High Court held that the order of confirmation of District/ Additional District & Sessions J.udge on ·probation ha• to be nassed bv the Governor in con- sultation with the High Court and in this view of the matter the order of confirma- !'-42; SCT/75 366 ll975]i 3 s.c."!. ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS tion of Rao passed by t~e High Court was ineffective. The alleg*ion that the orders were the result ot the mala fides has not been sub5tantiated. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.