PRADYAT KUMAR BOSE versus THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1331 · Decided: 23-12-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. .,. 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
PRADYAT KUMAR BOSE 
ti. 
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF 
CALCUTT A HIGH COURT. 
lVIVIAN 
BosE, 
BHAGWATI, 
]AGANNADHADAs, 
B. P. SINHA and ]APER IMAM JJ.] 
1331 
Calcutta High Court-Letters Patent 1865 11s 11menied in 1919-
Clause S read with clause 4-Chief Justice-Power of appointmenl-
W !tether includes power of dismissal-Delegation 
of enquiry into 
charges by Chief Justice to another Judge-Competency thereof-P9Uln' 
to appoint or dismiss an officer-Whether an 11dminis~rative power:-
Dismissal of an official by Chief fustice-Whether prior consultation 
of Public Services Commission necessary-Constit#tion of India, 
Arts. 229, 3H, 320(3) and 367(1)-General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 
X of 1897), s. 16. 
The appellant was appointed in March 1948 by the Chief Justice 
of the Calcutta High Court as Registrar ~nd Accountant-General of 
the High Court on its original side and confirmed therein in Nov-
e1nber 1948. He was dismissed from that post with effect from ht 
September 1951 by the Chief Justice by his order dated 3rd Septem-
ber 1951. There were various charges against the appellant and 
Mr. Justice Das Gupta was deputed by the Chief Justice to make an 
enquiry and submit a report. Mr. Justice Das Gupta made a full 
enquiry and submitted a report in which he exonerated the appel-
lant in respect of some of the charges but found him guilty in res-
pect of other charges. His conclusion was that the appellant must be 
held guilty of misconduct and dishonest conduct and· that he was 
unfit to hold the office of Registrar of the Original Side of the Cal-
cutta High Court. The Chief Justice issued notice to the appel-
lant intimating that he agreed with the 
report and asked him to 
show cause why he should not be dismissed from his post. After he 
was 
given an 
opportunity to show cause, the appellant was dis-
missed by an order of the Chief Justice. 
The appellant's petition to 
the 
Governor for the cancellation 
of the above order was dismissed. Subsequently his" application for 
review to the Chief Justice of the orior order of dismissal and a writ 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed in the High Court in 
respect of his dismissal were also dismissed one after the other. The 
appellant obtained leave; to appeal to the Supreme Court. The three 
main points for consideration by the Supreme Court were : 
I. Whether the Chief Justice of the 
High Court 
had 
no 
power to dismiss the appellant ; 
2. Even if 
the Chief Justice had such power 
whether he 
could not delegate the enquiry into the charges to another Judie bat 
should have made the enquiry himself ; and 
1955 
' 
1955 
l'Nd.Jld K...., 
&.1 
v. 
Tlw H011'61' tlN 
CAitl Jrati<'. of 
~H1g/, 
Court 
1332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
3. Whether the order of dismissal by the Chief Justice 
could 
have been passed without previous consultation with the Public Ser-
vices Commission as provided by Art. 320 of the Constitution. 
Held ( l) that the Chief Justice was competent to dismiH the 
appellant because both by virtue of the provisions of clause 8 of the 
Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court read with clause 4 of the 
same as well as Arts. 229(1), 313 and 367(1) of the Constitution read 
with s. 16 of the General Clauses Act, the power of appointment in-
cludes the power of dismissal ; 
(2) the objection lo the validity of dismissal on the ground that 
the dcl~gation of enquiry amounted to a delegation of power is with-
out substance because the exercise of power to appoint or dismiss an 
ofticer is the exercise not of a judicial power but of an administra-
tive power and it is well settled that a statutory functionary exer-
cising such a power cannot be said to have delegated his functioa 
merely because he has deputed a ,responsible and competent oflicial 
to enquire and report ; and 
(3) it was not necessary to have the previous consultation with 
the Public Service Commission for the dismissal of the appellant by 
the Chief Justice because Art. 320(3) of the Constitution taken as a 
whole is inconsistent with Art. 229 of the 
Constitution and also 
because the language thereof is not applicable to the 
High Court 
Staff. 
North-West Frontier Province v. Suraj Nar•in Anand ([1948] 
L.R. 75 I.A. 343), Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, ([1953] 
2 Q.B. 18, 40), Board of Education v. Rice ([1911] A.C. 179), and 
Local Go•ernme•I Board v. Ar/illte ([1915] A.C. 120), referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
Ju1.

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