LexTHE REGISTRAR (ADMN.), HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTT ACK versus SISIR KANTA SATAPATHY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE REGIS'":'RAR (ADMN.), HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTT ACK v. SISIR KANTA SATAPATHY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. ETC. SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK, S.P. KURDUKAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 233, 234 and 235 read with C Article 311-Judicial Officers in State of Orissa-Campulsory retirement a/- Authority competent to pass the order-Held, High Court retains the power of disciplinary control over subordinate judiciary including the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judicial Officers, suspend them pending inquiry and to impose punishment on them-But as regards order D of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, termination of services or compulsory retirement, High Court is only the recommending authority and cannot itself pass the order-Such an order has to be passed by the State Governor- However, the recommendation of the High Court would be binding on the State Government-Subordinate Judiciary-Disciplinary control over. E First respondent in all the three appeals were Judicial Officers in the State of Orissa. The Review Committee of the High Court recommended that the respondents be retired prematurely in public interest. The said recommendation was accepted in the Full Court Meeting of the High Court held on 4.2.1987. Ultimately the respondents were retired prematurely as per the Notification dated 5.2.1987 issued by the High Court. Writ petitions F were filed inter alia, on the ground that the High Court was not empowered to pass an order of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions. Consequently, the respondents were allowed to join their duties. After the judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court recommended to the State Government for compulsory retirement of the respondents. Meanwhile, the High Court filed appeals before this Court which stayed operation of the impugned judgment and directed that respondents would not work on the posts they had joined. On the other hand, the State Government 473 G H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A did not act on the recommendations of the High Court to retire prematurely the respondents on the ground that the matter was pending in the Supreme Court Disposing of the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1. In view of the plain language of Articles 233, 234 and 235, and in -particular of Article 235 read with Article 311 of the Constitution, the High Court could not itself have passed an order of compulsory retirement, which amounts to termination of services. [478-B] C State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & Ors., [1976) 2 SCC 977 and Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah, etc., (1988) 3 SCC 211, relied on. 1.2. While the High Court retains the power of disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary, including the power to initiate disciplinary · D proceedings, suspend them pending enquiries and impose punishment on them, but when it comes to the question of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of services of the Judicial Officers on any count whatsoever, the High Court becomes only the recommending authority arid cannot itself pass such an order. The formal order to give effect to such a E decision has to be passed by the State Governor. [486-E] The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, [1966] 1 SCR 771; Chief Justice of A.P. & Ors. v. L. V.A. Dixitulu & Ors. etc., [1979) 2 SCC 34; State of UP. v. Batuk Dea Pati Tripathi & Anr., [1978) 2 SCC 102; Tej pal Singh v. State of UP. & Anr.,, [1986) 3 SCC 604; High Court of Judicature F for Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand & Anr., [1998) 3 SCC 72; Shyam Lal v. State of UP., [1955} 1SCR26; S.P. Gupta, etc. v. Union of India & Anr. etc., [1981) Supp. SCC 87 and All India Judges' Association & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., etc., [1993) 4 SCC 288, referred to. G 1.3. In the instant case, the decision of the Orissa High Court dated 4.2.87 (on the Administrative Side) was required to be forwarded to the Governor for passing an order of compulsory retirement. That was not done. It was wrong for the High Court to have passed the order of compulsory retirement itself. The judicial side of the High Court rightly decided the writ petition in favour of the Judicial Officers and held the order dated 4.2.1987 H (as issued by notification dated 5.2.1987) to be bad. There is no error in the J REGIS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.