1. When these matters were listed for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court, the Division Bench noticed that the Registry of the Original Side has not placed the affidavit in reply before the Court which is stated therein to have been filed on 20 January 2015. The learned Judges therefore made observations that inconvenience was caused to the Judges and the litigants on such lapses and therefore, passed the following order on 28 January 2015:

"2. Let the Prothonotary and Senior Master and Registrar, High Court, Original Side proceed against the Master and Assistant Prothonotary (Judicial) and supporting staff about the lapses on their part, which are indeed serious. Let written warnings be issued to all of them and an entry be made to this effect in their confidential records."

2. For the purpose of compliance with the above directions, the matter was placed by the Registry before the Chief Justice on the administrative side and the Chief Justice directed the matter to be placed before the Bench of three Judges. Accordingly, the matter is listed before us today.

3. While dealing with issue of taking disciplinary action against any officer or employee of the High Court for any alleged lapse in relation to any judicial proceeding or an administrative matter, the concerned Judge/s may take note of what may appear to be a lapse on the part of the office staff and may even direct the Registry to call for an explanation from such staff. If the explanation is not accepted by the learned Judge/s, the question would arise whether the power to take disciplinary action can be exercised by the learned Judge/s hearing the matter.

4. Article 229 of the Constitution of India, particularly clauses (1) and (2) thereof read as under:

"(1) Appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct :

Provided that the Governor of the State may be rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose:

Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State.”

5. The relevant provisions of the Bombay High Court Discipline and Appeal Rules read as under:

“2. Definitions. – In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires –

(c) 'Appointing Authority' in relation to a High Court servant means –

(i) the authority competent to make appointments to the service to which the High Court servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of service in which High Court servant is for the time being included;

(ii) the authority competent to make appointment to the post which High Court servant for the time being holds;

(iii) 'Disciplinary Authority' means an authority competent under these Rules to impose on a High Court servant any of the penalties specified in the rules.

5. (a) Disciplinary Authority. – The Chief Justice or the appointing authority may impose any of the penalties so specified in rule 4 on a High Court servant .

(b) The Additional Registrars and any other Officer specially empowered by the appointing authority or the Chief Justice may impose any of the minor penalties in rule 4.

6. Authority to institute the proceedings. –

(1) The Chief Justice or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may, -

(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against a High Court servant.

(b) a disciplinary authority c