THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus NRIPENDRA NATH BAGCHI

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 10-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
-
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
NRIPENDRA NATH BAGCfil 
September 10, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, ANDS. M. S!KRI, JJ.) 
17 l 
Constitution of India Art. 235-High Court's Control over subordinate 
courts-Control whether includes disciplinary powers-Inquiry Into Conduct 
of District Judge whether to be made by High Court or by the State Govern-
ment-West Bengal Service Rules-Rule ?5(a)-Service period whether 
can be extended for purpose of enquiry against officer. 
The respondent was appointed a Munsif on November 10, 1927. After 
promotion he became an Additional District and Sessions Judge and offi· 
ciated at several stations as District and Sessions Judge but was never 
confirmed as such. 
In the ordinary course he was due to superannuate: 
and retire on July 31, 1953. 
By an order dated July 14, 1953 the Govern· 
ment of West Bengal ordered that the respondent be retained in servico 
for a period of two months commencing from August I, 1953. The order 
purported to be under Rule 75(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part L 
By another order dated July 20, 1953, the respondent was placed under 
suspension and on the following day he waSJ served with 11 charges and 
asked to file a written reply within 15 days. 
An enquky into the charges 
was made by an officer appointed for the purpose. During the period of 
the enquiry the respondent was retained in service, though kept in suepen-
sion, by repeated orders under rule 75(a). The enquiry officer reported 
that some of the charges were proved. On March 18. 1954 the re•pondent 
was asked to show cause why he should not be dismi9sed from service 
and after he had shown cause he was dismissed on May 27, 1954. The 
Public Service Commission was consulted but not the High Court. The 
respondent appealed to the Governor unsuccessfully. Thereafter he applied 
to the High Court at Calcutta under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution 
against hls dismissal. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal as 
well as the enquiry. 
The Government of West Bengal appealed to this 
Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. 
Tue questions that fell for consideration were : (I) ~ether the 
enquiry ordered by the Government and conducted by an Executive Officer 
of the Government against a District and Sessions Judge contravened the 
provisions of Art. 235 of the Constitution which vests in the High Court 
the control over the DiS<trict Court and the courts subordinate thereto; 
and (2) whether the provi•ions of rule 75(a) West Bengal Service Rules 
could be utilised to extend the service of the respondent beyond the normal 
age of retirement. 
HELD: (i) Rule 75(a) which was modelled on Rule 56(a) o! !he 
Fundamental Rules was not designed to be used for the purpose of reta1n1ng 
a peroon in service for enquiry against him but to keep in employment 
persons with a meritorious record of service who although superannuated 
can render some more service and whose ret·ention in service is considered 
necessary on public grounds. 
I~ retention in s-arvice for the first reason 
wao consid~red necessary a rule like Rule S6(d) of the Fundamental Rules 
was required. [777 E-C] 
772 
SUPREME COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966] l S.C.R. 
(ii) There is special provision for District Judges in the Conslilution 
A 
in Arts. 233 to 23 7. 
These articles deal with the appointment of persona 
to be, and postings and promo'.ions of, District Judges and appointment. 
postings and promotions of Judges subordinate to 1hc District (:ourt and 
the courts subordinat·, thcre'o. They abo provide for special rules to b<: 
made by the Go\crnor of the Slate after consultation with the Stale Public 
Service Commission and the lligh Court cx·~rcising jurisdic:ion in relation 
to each State. 
These articles were not placed in the Chapter on services 
but immediately after the provisions in regard to the High Courts. Tho 
B 
article'i v.·ent a little further than the corresponding sections of the Govern· 
men( of lndia Act, 1935. 
They vested the 'control' of the district courll 
and the courts subordinate thereto in the High Courts. [779 B-E; 785 BJ 
(iii) The word 'con>rol' as used in An. 235 includes disciplinary control 
or jurisdiction over District Judges. 
The history which lies behind tho 
enactment of these articles indicates that 'control' was vested in the High 
Court to ef!eotuate a purpose, namely, the securing of the independence 
C 
of

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