SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., V. KHALID, J.
Civil Appeal No. 1278 of 1982,
D/- 15-4-1987.
Dev Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
The Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and others, Respondents.
Constitution Of India, 1949 - Article 136, 233, 234, 235, 136(1), 226 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 35 - Government of India Act, 1935 - Section 224 - Factories Act, 1948 - U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 - Service - Employees – A Senior of Court Slapped - Appellants were employees in ministerial establishment of Courts having entered into service - They are members of - Punjab Civil Courts Clerks Association - There was an incident in Court of Shri N. S. Mundra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira - On that day, one Jagdish Lal, a Senior Ahlmad of Court was slapped - He is one of appellants in this appeal - On day he was slapped, he presented a representation to District and Sessions Judge Shri Nehra - Whether High Court in disposing of appeal of petitioners was acting in administrative capacity or as a Tribunal or as High Court - Whether High Court in disposing of appeal of petitioners was acting in an administrative capacity under Art. 235 or as a Tribunal or as High Court - Whether an appeal under Art. 136 ties to this Court from order under challenge - Whether State Government when it exercised its authority under R. 6(5) and R. 6(6) - Whether power exercised by authority which possesses said trappings is judicial power of State or not – Held, A notice to be given to person concerned as also an opportunity of being heard - Therefore this stage of proceeding is no less judicial than earlier one - Consequently any action decided to be taken against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct is a judicial order and as such it cannot be varied at will of authority who is empowered to impose punishment - Indeed, very object with which notice is required to be given on question of punishment is to ensure that it will be such as would be justified upon charges established and upon other attendant circumstances of case - There is a clear distinction between Courts of law exercising judicial powers and other bodies - Decisions by Courts are clearly judicial - That is not case with bodies exercising administrative or executive powers - In certain matters even Judges have to act administratively and in so doing may have to act quasi judicially in dealing with matters entrusted to them - It is only where authorities are required to act judicially either by express provisions of statute or by necessary implication that decisions of such an authority would amount to a quasi judicial proceeding - When Judges in exercise of their administrative functions decide cases it cannot be said that their decisions are either judicial or quasi judicial decisions - In appeal before High Court, High Court was following its own procedure, a procedure not normally followed in judicial matters - High Court was not resolving any dispute or controversy between two adversaries - In other words, while deciding this appeal there was no lis before High Court - High Court was only exercising its power of control while deciding this appeal – Court have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that appeal is not maintainable -However, court do not propose to dismiss it without leaving any remedy to appellants – Court direct Registrar to transfer records of case to Punjab and Haryana High Court requesting High Court to take this petition on its file as a petition under Art. 226 and dispose of matter as expeditiously as possible on available pleadings and documents – Order accordingly.
Judgement
KHALID, J.:- The appellants were the employees in the ministerial establishment of the Courts at Ferozepore and Zira having entered into service varying from the year 1952 to 1965. They are members of the- Punjab Civil Courts Clerks Association. On 24th July, 1980, there was an incident in the Court of Shri N. S. Mundra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira. On that day, one Jagdish Lal, a Senior Ahlmad of the Court was slapped. He is one of the appellants in this appeal. On the day he was slapped, he presented a representation to the District and Sessions Judge Shri Nehra. An enquiry was directed to be held by the Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore, into the incident. In this enquiry. it was found that Shri Mundra, Judicial Magistrate, Zira, slapped Jagdish Lal. This incident caused resentment in the Association and the Association,. therefore, felt that something should be done to demonstrate this resentment. Accordingly, it was decided by the Association that a request should be made to the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, to transfer Jagdish Lal from the Court at Zira to any other Court so that calm could be restored. The appellants among others met the District and Sessions Judge for this purpose on 28-7-1980. It is alleged that the Sessions Judge did not accede to the request of the representatives of the Association to plead their case before him. This aggravated the situation. Though the association and their representatives including the appellants were keen to resolve the matter, the District and Sessions Judge adopted a hardened attitude. The matter came to the notice of the High Court. An enquiry by Justice S. P. Goyal of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed to be held and it was scheduled for 9th August, 1980. He was to reach the Canal Rest House at 4.00 P.M., but he could reach only at 7.30 P.M. At that time, the District and Sessions Judge, along with other Judicial Officers were present to receive him. A demonstration was organised by the subordinate Court officials. There was continued slogan shouting from 4.00 P.M. till 7.30 P.M. before Justice Goyals arrival. The appellants are said to have taken a prominent part in raising objectionable slogans. The slogans are :
"N.S. Mundra Murdabad; N. S. Mundra Hai Hai; Dakia Mahajan Superintendent Murdabad; B. S. Nehra Murdabad; B. S. Nehra naun Chalta Karo; Katal Nehra Murdabad; B. S. Nehra Murdabad."
The appellants were charge-sheeted for this conduct of theirs.
2. Justice Goyal alighted from his car and went inside the visiting room of the rest house. He called the representatives of the Association. Some of them met him. They came out after the meeting. There were other demonstrators waiting for the result of the talks. After they came back, those who raised slogans disbursed. On 11 th August, 1980, the District Judge sent a letter to Shri G. S. Khurana, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, to hold preliminary enquiry into the demonstration by the Court officials in front of the Canal Rest House and the slogans raised there. Mr. Khurana recorded the statements of some officers on the same day and submitted his report on that very day itself. According to his report, the appellants had taken a prominent part in raising objectionable slogans in question. On the basis of this report, the District Judge, placed the appellants under suspension by his order dated 14-8-1980. On 12th August, 1980, the District Judge had intimated the High Court about the finding in the preliminary report and had sought guidance of the High Court. The appellants were supplied with the articles of the charges and statements of imputation, etc. They gave their replies. While admitting that they had taken part in the demonstration on the day in question they denied that they had taken a prominent part in the demonstration as leaders in raising objectionable and defamatory slogans against their superior officers. A formal enquiry was ordered against these appellants. Afte
distinguished : Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. V. P. N. Sharma
Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., Bombay
Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Collector of Customs
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.