SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
The State of W.B. and another, Appellants
Versus
Nripendra Nath Bagchi, Respondent.
1. Sukhdev Singh Sodhi, 2. Murtaza Khan, 3 to 7. The Advocates-General for the States of Assam, Maharashtra, Madras, Orissa and Rajasthan, 8. The Hon ble the Chief Justice Orissa High Court, Interveners.
Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary Attorney General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with them), for Appellants; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee Senior Advocate (Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate for Mr. S. C. Muzumdar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
M/s. B. R. L Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates, for Intervener No. 1; M/s. Arun B. Saharya and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, for Intervener No. 2; Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Intervener No. 3; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General of India (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 4; Mr. N. Krishnaswamy, Reddy, Advocate General, for the State of Madras (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Intervener No. 5; Mr. D. Sahu, Advocate General, for State of Orissa (M/s. B. P. Jha and R.N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Intervener No. 6; Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Intervener No. 7; Mr. Hardev Singh, Advocate, for Intervener No. 8.
-held, subject to power of the Governor in the matter of first appointemnt, posting, promotion, including reduction in rank of District judge, removal, dismissal, the High Court has complete control, High Court can hold enquiries, award punishment other than dismissal, removal subject to conditions of service and right to appeal if provided for and giving show cause notice under Article 311(2) unless requirement is dispensed with by the Governor under the sub-Clauses (b) and (c) ibid.
-held, the matter should be left by the High Court for the Governor if case arises for special power under the provisos. When exercising special powers in matters of inquiries against District Judge, the Governor is to have regard to the opinion of High Court, whosoever may be inquiry authority in the State.
-see decision in State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath, AIR 1966 SC 447=(1965) 2 SCA 884=(1966) 2 S.C.W.R. 169=(1966) 2 SCJ 59=1966 S.C.D. 59.
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal and its Chief Secretary against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, dated July 1, 1960 by which the order dismissing N. N. Bagchi (the respondent) from service was quashed. The High Court certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court under Arts. 132 (1) and 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
2. N. N. Bagchi was appointed a Munsif on November 10, 1927. After promotions he became an Additional District and Sessions Judge and officiated at several stations as District and Sessions Judge but he was never confirmed as such. He last acted as a District and Sessions Judge at Birbhum in March 1953. In April of the same year he was transferred to Alipore as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. In the ordinary course Bagchi was due to superannuate and retire on July 31, 1953. On April 17, 1953 he applied for leave from April 27, 1953 to July 31, 1953 preparatory to retirement. The leave was held inadmissible. He was, however, granted leave from July 17, 1953 to the end of his service. Bagchi however, reported on April 27, 1953 that he had gone to Puri on April 25, 1953 because his son was ill and asked for one month s leave from April 27, 1953. Leave for 3 weeks was granted which at his request, was extended to June 5, 1953.
3. By an order, dated July 14, 1963 Government ordered that Bagehi be retained in service for a period of two months commencing from August 1, 1953. The order reads :
"I am directed to state that Government have been pleased to sanction under R. 75(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I, the retention in service of Nripendra Nath Bagehi, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas for a period of two months with effect from Ist August, 1953, the date of his compulsory retirement, in the interest of the public service".
Rule 75 (a) which was invoked reads as follows :-
Rule - "75 (a), Except as otherwise provided in this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant other than a member of the clerical staff or a servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may however, be retained in service beyond that date with the sanction of Government on public grounds which should be recorded in writing; but he shall not be retained after attaining the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances."
By another order, dated July 20, 1953 Bagchi was placed under suspension and on the following day he was served with 11 charges and was asked to file a written reply within 15 days. An enquiry into these charged followed and it was entrusted to Mr. B. Sarkar, I.C.S. Commissioner (later Member, Board of Revenue) by the Government of West Bengal. The enquiry continued for a long time and Bagchi was retained in service, though kept under suspension, by repeated orders of different duration s under R. 75 (a). Mr. Sarkar made his report to the Government on December 21, 1953 holding that some of the charges were proved. He did not recommend any punishment as he thought that punishment would depend upon Bagchi s record of service. On March 18, 1954 Bagchi was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed 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. He appealed to the Governor unsuccessfully. On February 15, 1955 he applied to the High Court at Calcutta under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution against his dismissal and a rule was issued. On the recommendation of Mr. Justice D. N. Sinha, the case was placed before a Full Bench, as important questions of constitutional law were involved. The Full Bench by its judgment, dated July 1, 1960 made the rule absolute and quashed the order of dismissal as well as the enquiry. On the application of the Government of West Bengal the High Court certified the case as fit for appeal to this Court and the present appeal was filed. At an earlier
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.