REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS ETC. versus R. RAJIAH AND K. RAJESWARAN

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 11-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS ETC. 
v. 
R. RAJIAH AND K. RAJESWARAN 
MAY 11, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J., MURARI MOHON DUTT 
AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
'Article 235-District Courts and Courts Subordinate thereto--
Control over vests in High Court-Power of Control comprises 
Appointment, Promotion and Imposition of Punishment in respect of 
Subordinate Judiciary-Decision to be arrived at after due enquiry-
Governor to take action on recommendation of High Court. 
Fundamental Rules-FR 56(d) read subject to and in harmony 
with Article 235-Judicial Officer-Compulsory retirement a/-
Decision to be taken by High Court-Governor to take action on 
recommendation of High Court. 
D 
Civil Services-Action against Government servant. consists of 
two parts-First part is decision will have to be taken whether action is 
to be taken-Second part the decision to be carried out by a formal 
order. 
The two respondents, R. Rajiah and R. Rajeswaran, who were 
E 
members of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, were functioning as 
District Munsifs when orders of their compulsory retirement from 
service were passed by the High Court of Madras in its administrative 
jurisdiction under Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules. Both the re-
spondents moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution 
chaDenging the validity of the impugned orders on the grounds:(l) that 
F 
the High Court had no power to pass an order of compulsory retirement 
of a member of the State Judicial Service as such an order could be 
passed only by the Appointing Authority i.e., the Governor; (2) that 
there was no material on record which could justify their premature 
retirement; and (3) that the Review Committees of the High Court that 
passed the impugned orders were not properly constituted. 
G 
Two Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court delivered 
separate judgments and differed on the question of the power of the 
High Court to pass the impugned orders. One of the learned Judges 
took the view that though it was within the jurisdiction of the High 
Court to take a decision whether a member of the State Judicial service 
should be compulsorily retired or not, the formal order of compulsory 
rl retirement was to be passed by the Governor acting on the recommen-
332 
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS v. R. RAJIAH 
333 
dation of the High Court. According to the other learned Judge, it was 
the High Court which was competent to pass an order of compulsory 
retirement of a member of the State Judicial Service without any formal 
order by the Governor under rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules. 
On merits, both the Judges came to the conclusion that there was 
no material on record to justify the impugned order. ·It was also held 
that in the case of Mr. Rajeswaran, the irregular .or illegal constitution 
of the Review Committee vitiated the impugned order, while in the case 
of Mr. Rajiah, the manner in which the Reivew Committee considered 
the question of compulsory retirement was illegal. 
The High Court further pointed out that although Mr. Rajeswa-
ran was confirmed as a District Munsif on 1.1.1976, in coming to a 
decision that Mr. Rajeswaran should be compulsorily retired, the third 
Judge of the Review Committee relied upon events that happened in 
1954. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that'the High Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
alone has the power to pass an order of compidsory retirement of a 
' 
member of the State judicial Serivce, and unless it is so held it would be 
in derogation of High Court's control over subordinate courts as con-
ferred on it hy Article 235 of the Constitution. It was also urged that 
rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules should he declared ultra vires in so 
far as it confers power on the Governor to compulsorily retire members 
E 
of the Subordinate judicial service. On merits, it was contended that the 
High Court was not at all justified in considering the question of ade-
quacy or otherwise of the material on record in respect of the impugned 
orders of compulsory retirement. 
Dismissing the appeals, it was, 
F 
HELD: (Per M.M. Dutt, J.) (C.J.I. agreeing with him) 
(1) Art. 235 vests in the High Court control over Districts Courts 
and Courts subordinate thereto. The vesting of such control is consis-
tent with the idea of preservation of the independence of the judiciary. G 
If any authority other than the High Court is conferred with the abso-
lute right to take action against a member of the su

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