YOGINATH D. BAGDE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 16-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
YOGINA TH D. BAG DE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979-Rule 
c 9(2) 
Dismissal-Judicial Officer-Charged for indulging in corrupt 
practices-Departmental enquiry-Enquiry Officer's finding that charges were 
not established-Disciplinary Committee of High Court disagreeing with the 
D findings of Enquiry Officer, recommending punishment of dismissal-Show 
cause notice to delinquent officer-No opportunity of hearing provided before 
final decision-Validity of-Held, it is obligatory on the Disciplinary 
Committee to afford opportunity of hearing before reversing the finding of 
Enquiry Officer-Requirement of hearing in consonance with the principles 
of natural justice has to be read into the Rule, which does not specifically 
E provide for such opportunity-Principles of natural justice-Violation of-
Order of dismissal quashed-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2). 
Departmental Enquiry-Pendency and conclusion of-Submission of 
enquiry report-Effect of-Held, mere submission of findings to the Disciplinary 
Authority does not bring about the closure of enquiry proceedings-Enquiry 
F proceedings would be pending till the findings were considered and final 
decision is taken in the matter. 
Constitution of India 
Article 235-Control of High Court over subordinate courts-Vesting 
G of-Whether to be exercised by Full Court consisting of all the sitting Judges 
or through a Committee consisting of some Judges? Judicial Officer-
Disciplinary Committee of High Court recommending dismissal-Validity 
of-Held, in view of Constitution Bench's decision in Batuk Deo 's case, 
Disciplinary Committee competent to recommend dismissal of an officer-
H Suggestion to Chief Justice of the High Court to adopt a Resolution for wider 
490 
"f!t.' 
Y.D. BAGDEv. STATE 
491 
consultation, with other Judges regarding imposition of major penalties like A 
dismissal or removal of Judicial Officers. 
· 
Article 235-Control of High Court over subordinate courts-Duty to 
protect the officer of subordinate court-Held, it is imperative for the High 
Court to protect its honest Judicial Officers from unscrupulous litigants and B 
lawyers. 
Articles 226 and 32-Judicial review-Reappraisal of the findings of 
Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority-Scope and extent of 
Appellant, an officer of subordinate judiciary, was charged for indulging C 
in corrupt practices. The charges were framed on the basis of a complaint 
made by an accused whose trial was pending before the appellant Departmental 
Enquiry was initiated against the appellant. Enquiry Officer held that the 
charges against the appellant were not established and, therefore, 
recommended his reinstatement. However, the Disciplinary Committee of the 
High Court, disagreeing with findings of Enquiry Officer, issued show cause D 
notice to the appellant for imposing the punishment of dismissal. The 
Disciplinary Committee without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, 
recommended his dismissal from service. Appellant unsuccessfully challenged 
his dismissal before the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellant it was contended that before recording its reasons 
for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issuing a show 
cause notice in which the punishment of dismissal was proposed, the appellant 
should have been given an opportunity of hearing and since this was not done, 
the principles of natural justice were violated with the result that the decision 
E 
of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court stood vitiated; the decision F 
to impose the punishment of dismissal could not have been taken by 
Disciplinary Committee as the jurisdiction in that regard vested in the High 
Court which means the Full Court comprising of all the sitting Judges and 
they alone could have deliberated upon the matter and taken a decision 
whether or not the appellant was liable to be dismissed from service; that G 
there was no evidence in support of the charges that the appellant had 
demanded money from the accused and that the Enquiry Officer was justified 
i~ recording the finding that the charges were not established. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of High Court, the 
~rt 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Held: 1.1. The action of Disciplinary Committee in not giving an 
oppor

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