LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus RAMESH CHANDRA MASHRUWALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 710 STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAMESH CHANDRA MASHRUWALA January 21, 1977 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JJ.] Disciplinary jurisdictit.m of the' High Court-The Registrar of the Small Causes c;ourt, A~m.ed~bad ~PP?•n,te~ by the Governor, if is "in judicial service" and sub- 1ect to. d!fc~plmary 1ur1sd1c'.wn of the High C_ou;t-;-The _qu~stion_ of "appointing authority l~ not relevant zn regard to the disciplinary 1urisdictwn of the High Court-Articles 235, and 236 of the Constitution of India, Sections 9(1) (aa), 13, 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882-Scope of. Reasonable opportunity-Failure to give copies of documents demanded is contrary to the provisions of Art. 311. Pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted by the High Court and on its recommendation, the Gujarat Governor dismissed the respondent from the service of Registrar, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The respondent challeng- ed by way of a writ the said order contending : ( l) The High Court was iaot bis appointing authority and he being the member of general State service, the High Court has no authority to initiate proceedings, the appointment of the enquiry officer, framing of charges of misconduct and taking disciplinary p:ro- ceedings etc. (2) The High Court has no authority to direct further enquiry to be made in respect of recording the statement of one Mr. Bhatt, an advocate or to consider the reports made by the enquiry officer and come to the conclu- sion about his guilt or to issue show cause notice of punishment. (3) The direc- tion of the High Court that the statement of Mr. Bhatt iS recorded was passed without hearing the petitioner and this violated tho rules of natural justice. (4) The failure to give copies of certain documents demanded by the petitioner deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, th@ enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution; and ( 5) The impugned order was passed by the Government without consulting the Pub- lic Service Commission and the same was illegal and bad in law. The High Court held : ( l) The post of the Registrar of Small Causes Court does not fall within the expression "judicial service" within the meaning of Art. 235 and (2) The High Court has no disciplinary iurisdiction over the Registrar in view of the fact that th.e H;igh Court is not the "appointing authority". Accepting the State's appeal by certificate and remitting the case, the Court, HELD : ( l) The Registrar of the Court of .s~all Causes is a ~rs~n ~ohli!1g a civil judicial post inferior to the post of D1str1ct Judge and he 1s m 1ud1.c1al service. Sections 9(1), 13 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency· Small Causes Court Act, 1882 indicate in no uncertain manner that the ~egistrar of Small Causes Court exercises judicial powers, Inasmu7h .a~ the Reg1s.tra: S?l.all Cans~ Court exercises his judicial function, he is a 1ud1c1al officer m 1ud1cial service and comes within the scope and intent of Art. 235 and 236. [711 H, 712 G=H] (2) The High Court was in error in. C?n~ideri~g ~he. q!1estion of "appointing authority" as relevant in regard to the d1sc1plmary 1u~1s~1c~10n of the H~gh Court and also in holding that it had i;io . p~wer t<;> ~rd~r _d1sc1plmary proceedmgs; The High Court abdicated its own d1sc1plmary 1uns~17tion. The High Court is the competent authority to hold departmental enqmnes. [711 D-E, 713 A-CJ High Court of Punjab & Haryana etc. v. State of Haryqna and Ors. [1975] (3) SCR 365 and Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Pun1ab [1975] (1) SCR 814, referred to. ,_, r GUJARAT V. RAMESH CHANDRA (Ray, C.J.) 711 (3) In the instant case the enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution due to the failure to give copies of certain documents demanded by the Registrar, thus deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. [713 GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1975. From the Judgment and Order dated the 19-4-74 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 306 of 1973. S. T. Desai and Girish Chandra for the Appellants. I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment and order dated 19 April 1974 of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 306 of 1973. The question for consideration in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.