HIGH COURT OF A. P. AT HYDERABAD vs Government Of A. P. , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (COURTS C) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(AP) 383

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, G.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
HIGH COURT OF A.P.AT HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (COURTS C) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD - Respondent
W.A.No. 130/88 & W.P.No.12691/86
Decided On : 08-25-88
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy,Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy,Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao

Headnote:A.P. CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSI. FICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1963, Rules 8, 11 (1) and 21 (2), and A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, Rule 2 (3) (c) - Constitution of India, Arts. 233, 234 and 235Scope and ambit of Rule 21 (2) Rule 21 (2) of Civil Services Rules providing right of appeal against Order of High Court in disciplinary matter is ultravires Art. 235 of the Constitution - Rule 11 (1) of Civil Service Rules limiting power of High Court to impose penalties specified in Rule 8 (i), (iii) to (v) is ultravires of Art. 235.
       Held : Rule 21 (2) of the A.P. Civil Services (CC.A.,) Rules, providing for a right of appeal to the Governor against the orders of the High Court passed in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction would be ultravires Art. 235 of the Constitution. Any law made regulating the conditions of service of subordinate judiciary which has the effect of limiting or impinging upon the exclusive and comprehensive disciplinary jurisdiction vested in the High Court by virtue of the control conferred under the first part of Art. 235 of the constitution is ultravires, thus recognising the prime importance attached to the power conferred on the High Court in the interests of preserving and maintaining the independence of the judiciary from the executive interference.
       The situation would be incongrous that in case of District Judges either appointed directly or by promotion and in cases of District Munsif either appointed directly or by promotion and in cases of District Munsifs either appointed directly or by transfer, while the Governor is bound by the recommendations of the High Court in the matter of imposition of major penalties he should be the appellate authority in respect of punishments imposed on the other members of the subordinate judiciary over whom the High Court itself has the undoubted jurisdiction to impose major and minor penalties. Rule 21 (2) of the Rules may therefore be read down to mean that the right of appeal saved under Art. 235 of the Constitution is available in respect of the matters not affecting the disciplinary control vested in the High Court over the members of the Judicial Service.
       Rule 11 (1) of the A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules is ultravires Art. 235 of the Constitution insofar as it denies to the High Court the authority to impose punishments regarded as necessary and proper in disciplinary enquiries held against the subordinate judicial officers who have been holding the posts to which they have been appointed by the High Court.
       W.A., & W.P., Allowed

RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THESE cases filed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh project constitutional issues of considerable importance having profound import for the effective exercise, by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, of its disciplinary jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary by virtue of "the control" vested in it, under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The focas of the controversy is entered upon whether the Rules framed by the State government by virtue of the power conferred on it under Article 309 of the constitution which constitute an invasion of that disciplinary jurisdiction are to be declared invalid or whether the Rules can be so interpreted as not to impinge upon the High Court s exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction vested in it under Article 235 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) WRIT Appeal No. 130 of 1988 is preferred by the High Court against the judgment of Sriramulu, J. in Writ Petition No. 14588 of 1984 holding that the High Court is not the competent authority to remove the 2nd respondent therein and upholding the order dated 14th September, 1984 passed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh setting aside the order of removal of the 2nd respondent from service passed by the High Court of andhra Pradesh in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction over him.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent was selected as District Munsif by direct recruitment by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and was appointed as such to the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service under article 234 of the Constitution ot India by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. His services as District Munsif were later regularised and the High court also declared his probation as District Muasif with effect from 17th february; 1976. He was also temporarily promoted by the High Court to act as Subordinate Judge and posted as Additional Subordinate Judge, chittoor by its proceedings dated 20th February, 1980. While he was working as Munsif-Magistrate earlier, the High Court directed a preliminary departmental enquiry against him on the ground of alleged misconduct that led to his arrest by the police on the 26th September, 1976. He was also placed under suspension in public interest during the enquiry. The learned additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, who conducted the preliminary departmental enquiry found a prima facie case against him and recommended initiation of regular departmental enquiry into the alleged misconduct. The High Court thereupon directed regular departmental enquiry and appointed Sri J. Venugopala Rao, the then Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. After framing charges and holding enquiry in accordance with law, the enquiry Officer found him guilty of all the charges framed against him and recommended infliction of the penalty of removal of the 2nd respondent from service. The High Court resolved to accept the findings of the Enquiry officer provisionally and decided to impose, tentatively the punishment of removal from service and called upon the 2nd respondent to show-cause as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be accepted and the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed. After considering the explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent in reply to the notice, the High Court passed final order dated 20th January, 1982 removing the 2nd respondent from service. Aggrieved by the said order the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under rule 21 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" and the Governor of Andhra Pradesh by his order dated 14th September, 1984 allowed the appeal of the 2nd respondent and set aside the order of removal passed by the High Court. For fuller appreciation of the controversy the order passed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh is extracted hereunder :"government of Andhra Pradesh abstract:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document