T. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CHARI ETC. versus HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 09-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

T. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CHARI ETC. 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. 
MAY 9, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.] 
Se1vice Law-Andhra Pradesh Civil Se1vices (Classification, Control 
and Appeal) Rules, 1963-Rules 11(1), 21(2)-Disciplinmy proceedings in-
itiated againit Distlict Munsif-lmposition of punishment of removal-Held, 
the order has to be made by the Govemor on the recommendations of the 
High Cowt-Direct order issued by High Cowt not valid-Constitution of 
India, A1t. 235. 
A 
B 
c 
The Appellant joined the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service as 
District Munsif and alter confirmation in the said post, he was temporarily 
promoted as a Subordinate Judge in 1980. During the tenure as a District D 
Munsif in 1976, a preliminary enquiry was made into an allegation of 
misconduct and the appellant was arrested. A departmental enquiry was 
also initiated against him. Since the State Government did not give sanc-
tion, the Appellant was not prosecuted in the criminal court. In the 
departmental enquiry held by Sessions Judge, the charge of misconduct E 
was found proved and the punishment of removal from service was recom-
mended. The High Court accepted the findings and itself made an order 
removing the appellant from service. 
The Appellant challenged the order of removal by filing an appeal 
before the Governor under Rule 21 (2) of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 
F 
1963 and the appeal was allowed by the Governor on the ground that the 
High Court was not the competent authority to order the dismissal or 
removal from sen>"ice of the Subordinate Judicial officer. The Governor set 
aside the order of removal, granting the Appellant all consequential 
benefits. 
The Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing 
the order of the Governor. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single 
Judge of the High Court. The Respondent filed a Writ Appeal along with 
G 
a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 21 (2) of A.P. Civil 
Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter mentioned as Rules), which H 
595 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R . 
• 
A 
provides an appeal from an order passed by the High Court to the 
Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Full Bench of the High Court, upheld 
the contentions of the Respondent and allowed both the writ Appeal and 
writ petition. The Full Bench of the High Court held that (1) The order of 
removal from service could be made by the High Court itself, (2) that the 
B 
permission for appeal against the order of the High Court to the Governor 
was invalid, (3) that the Governor could not entertain any appeal under 
Rule 21(2) of the Rules against any order made by the High Court in its 
disciplinary jurisdiction (4) that in case of persons appointed or promoted 
to be District Judges or the District Munsiffs appointed directly or by 
transfer by the Governor, if the High Court exercising disciplinary control 
C over them recommends to the Governor to impose on the1n the major 
penalty of disnlissal or removal or reduction in rank, such a recommen-
dation is binding on the Governor by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitu-
tion, (5) that, Rule 11(1) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 is 
ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution in so far as it denies lo the High 
D Court the authority to impose punishments, both major and minor, 
regarded as necessary and proper in disciplinary enquiries, (6) that there 
is no right of appeal under Rule 21(2) of the Rules, to the Governor against 
the order of the High court passed in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdic-
tion, and (7) that Rule 21(2) must be read dowo to mean that the right of 
appeal saved under Article 235 of the Constitution is available only in 
E respect of matters not relating to the disciplinary control vested in the 
High Court over members of the Subordinate Judicial Service. 
On appeal, by the Appellant, this Court 
HELD: I. The order of removal from service of a person holding the 
F 
substantive rank of District Munsif has to be made only by the Governor, 
even though the Governor must act in accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the High court which is binding on the Governor. This is the true 
import of Article 235. [601-G-H] 
G 
B.S. Yadav and Othe1'.I· Etc. v. State of Haryana & Others Etc., [1981] 
1, SCR 1024 and Chief Justice of A.P. & Othe10· v. L. VA. Dixitulu and Othm· 
Etc., [1979] 2 SCC 34, referred to. 
2. The order 

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