Delegation of Disciplinary Authority by State Legal Services Authority to District Judge Is Valid: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has reaffirmed the administrative authority of District Judges over the disciplinary processes of local legal service bodies, ruling that the delegation of authority by a state-level head to a subordinate district official is legally permissible when authorized by the relevant superiors.

The Challenge to Disciplinary Jurisdiction

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Om Prakash, a Senior Assistant employed with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) , Mandi. The petitioner contested the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on July 10, 2024, by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi.

The core of the petitioner’s argument was jurisdictional: he asserted that because he was originally appointed by the H.P. State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) , the District Judge lacked the requisite authority under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to initiate such proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Union of India and others vs. B.V. Gopinath to argue that the methodology employed for initiating the charge was flawed.

Arguments and Counter-Arguments

Respondents, including the SLSA, maintained that the District Judge, as the Chairman of the DLSA, acted within the scope of authority delegated by the Executive Chairman of the SLSA. Official records showed that the Executive Chairman had approved the proposal for the District Judge to handle the matter at his own level, a response to repeated instances of alleged insubordination and financial irregularities, including the misclassification of over ₹41 lakh in grants.

The petitioner contended that the Legal Services Authorities Act did not provide for such delegation, and that the power remained exclusively with the State Authority.

Legal Analysis and the Principle of Delegation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court , led by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, analyzed the matter through the lens of recent jurisprudence, specifically the Supreme Court judgment in * State of Jharkhand and others vs. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025)*.

The Court held that the legal requirement for a disciplinary authority to "draw up" the substance of imputations does not necessarily require the authority to personally draft every document. Rather, the authority to "cause to be drawn up" allows for the delegation of tasks to superior officers or appointed designates.

Key Observations

The judgment provides significant clarity on administrative delegation:

> "The Disciplinary Authority is mandated by the law to 'draw up' or 'cause to be drawn up' the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct article of charge... 'cause to be drawn up' would enable the Disciplinary Authority to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and statement."

Furthermore, addressing the petitioner’s claim of jurisdictional overreach, the Court noted:

> "We are thus of the considered opinion that the judgment in Rukma Kesh Mishra’s case has held that the interference by the Courts, once the superior officer as such has granted the delegation, is not to be interfered with."

The Court also observed that the petitioner suffered no prejudice from the delegation, as the process was a direct implementation of the Executive Chairman’s approval.

Final Verdict: Judicial Restraint Prevails

The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, solidifying the view that once a delegation of authority is transparently documented and approved by the competent superior, the judiciary should practice restraint in interfering with ongoing departmental inquiries. The decision serves as a reminder to civil servants that administrative hierarchies within statutory bodies are empowered to exercise delegated authority to investigate professional misconduct, provided the internal guidelines were satisfied during the delegation process.