LexR.M. GURJAR AND ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
R.M. GURJAR AND ANR. A v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS. AUGUST 11, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.J B --( Civil Services: Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971: Rules 7(3), 18 and 23-Ministerial staff working in Civil Courts-Disciplinary proceed- c - ings-Punishment imposed by District Judge-Review by High Court under its Administrative jurisdiction-Enhancement of punishment-Whether valid. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellants who were working in the Civil Courts on the charge that they falsely indentified three persons before a judicial Magistrate. Both the appellants admitted Di the charge against them and prayed for mercy. The District Judge im- posed the penalty of withholding their furture promotions with permanent effect. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, enhanced the penalty to that of removal from se..Vice. E The appellants challenged their removal from service; by filing a Writ Petiti'ln before the High Court. The High Court held that under --. Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional control of High Court extended to the ministerial officers and servants on the estab- lishment of sub-ordinate courts also. Thus, the removal of the appellants F ~ from service was upheld. Being aggrieved against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants preferred the present appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: 1. The High Court was within its jurisdiction on the ad- G, ministrative side to enhance the punishment of the appellants in exercise ---< or its powers under rule 23 or the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. 2.1. The District Judge, being the Head of office and the -appointing authority or the appellants, was the disciplinary authority under Rule H • 775 )- 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R. A 7(3). The District Judge imposed the punishment of stoppage of promo- tion on permanent basis. Reading rules 18(1) and 18(2) together it is obvious that an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of promotion is appzolable and the appeal lies befcre an omcer immediately superior to the omcer who made the order. In this aase the order having been made B by the District Judge, the appeal would lie to an officer/authority immedi- ately superior to the District Judge. The District Judge is under the administrative control of the High Court. Therefore, the High Court is the immediate superior authority to the District .Judge and the appeal against the order of the District Judge in this case would lie to the High Court. c 2.2. Rule 23 empowers the appellate authority to exercise the power of review. It is, thus, ciear that the High Court being the appellate authority had the power to review the order of the District Judge. Admit- - tedly, the High Court passed the order enhancing the punishment in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the Rules. D State of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977) 2 SCC 12 and The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagch~ [1966) 1 SCR 771, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2107 of 1977. E From the Judgment and Order dated.4.5.1977 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2265 of 1974. S.K. Dholakia and P.C. Kapur for the Appellants. ..... F Anip Schthey and Ms. Rashmi Dhariwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -~ KULOIP SINGH, J. R.M. Gurjar and D.N. Jadhav were working as junior clerks in the Civil Courts under the administrative control of District G Judge, Broach, Gujarat. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on the charge that they falsely identified three persons before a· Judicial magistrate. At the enquiry both of them admitted the charge and prayed for mercy. The District Judge by the order dated June 5, 1974 ,_~ imposed the penalty of withholding their future promotions with per- H manent effect. The High Court in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of GURJAR v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 777 --+- the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 (the Rules) A enhanced the penalty and imposed the. punishment of removal from ser- vice. It is not disputed that the High Court enhanced the penalty after affording opportunity to the two officials in accordance with law. Gurjar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.