Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Uday Sinha and R.C.P.Sinha JJ.
Ranjit Prasad Sinha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3068 of 1980 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 24, 1982
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 226, 227 - SERVICE LAW - BIHAR JUDICIAL SERVICE - PROMOTION - TO THE POST OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - RECOMMENDATION OF THE HIGH COURT - WHETHER BINDING ON THE STATE GOVERNMENT - CONTROL OF THE HIGH COURT OVER THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY - WHETHER INCLUDES DISCIPLINARY CONTROL - POWER OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HIGH COURT TO SUSPEND A JUDICIAL OFFICER - WHETHER THE STANDING COMMITTEE CAN INITIATE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A JUDICIAL OFFICER - WHETHER THE STANDING COMMITTEE CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR SUSPENSION OF A JUDICIAL OFFICER - WHETHER RULE 3(VII) OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT RULES IS ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 235 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Subordinate Judge in the Bihar Judicial Service, challenged the decision of the High Court not to recommend his promotion to the post of Additional District Judge. He also challenged the suspension of his service and the initiation of departmental proceedings against him by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. The recommendation of the High Court for promotion of a Subordinate Judge to the post of Additional District Judge is not binding on the State Government. The State Government has the power to consider the recommendation of the High Court and take a final decision on the matter. 2. The control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary includes disciplinary control. The High Court has the power to suspend a judicial officer and initiate departmental proceedings against him. 3. The Standing Committee of the High Court has the power to suspend a judicial officer and initiate departmental proceedings against him. This power is derived from Rule 2 of the Patna High Court Rules, which empowers the Standing Committee to control and direct the Subordinate Courts. 4. Rule 3(vii) of the Patna High Court Rules, which provides that the Standing Committee shall have power to make recommendations regarding the suspension of Subordinate Judges and Munsifs, is ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has the sole power to control the subordinate judiciary, and this power cannot be delegated to the Standing Committee.
Issues: 1. Whether the recommendation of the High Court for promotion of a Subordinate Judge to the post of Additional District Judge is binding on the State Government. 2. Whether the control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary includes disciplinary control. 3. Whether the Standing Committee of the High Court has the power to suspend a judicial officer and initiate departmental proceedings against him. 4. Whether Rule 3(vii) of the Patna High Court Rules is ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The recommendation of the High Court for promotion of a Subordinate Judge to the post of Additional District Judge is not binding on the State Government. The State Government has the power to consider the recommendation of the High Court and take a final decision on the matter. 2. The control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary includes disciplinary control. The High Court has the power to suspend a judicial officer and initiate departmental proceedings against him. 3. The Standing Committee of the High Court has the power to suspend a judicial officer and initiate departmental proceedings against him. This power is derived from Rule 2 of the Patna High Court Rules, which empowers the Standing Committee to control and direct the Subordinate Courts. 4. Rule 3(vii) of the Patna High Court Rules, which provides that the Standing Committee shall have power to make recommendations regarding the suspension of Subordinate Judges and Munsifs, is ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has the sole power to control the subordinate judiciary, and this power cannot be delegated to the Standing Committee.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Uday Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by an officer of Bihar Subordinate Judicial Service. The respondents to this application are the State of Bihar, the Patna High Court and Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, retired Judge of this Court.
2. The prayers of the petitioner originally were firstly, to issue a writ of mandamus upon the State of Bihar to promote the petitioner as Additional District Judge : secondly, a writ of mandamus upon the High Court to confirm the petitioner as Subordinate Judge and thirdly, to quash the suspension of the petitioner effected by the order of the High Court dated 21-2-1980 (annexure-2). Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ application. The amendment prayed for was to add the prayer for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the High Court by order dated 21-2-1980 which is annexure-5 to this application. The amendment petition was filed on 17-9-1981. The order for initiation of departmental proceeding having been passed on 21-2-1980 was very much in existence when the petitioner was suspended. That prayer, therefore, should have been made in the main application itself. The amendment petition was put up for consideration before N.P. Singh and S. Narain, JJ. on 17-9-1981. The Bench ordered that the amendment petition be considered at the time of final hearing of the main writ application. When we took up hearing of the application, the prayer for amendment of the petition was pressed before us. Not going by technicality, we allowed the prayer for amendment of the application by adding one more prayer. Thus the fourth prayer of the petitioner is to quash the departmental disciplinary proceeding against him. At this stage, 1 would only like to state that the Enquiring Officer, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has already submitted his report and has found the petitioner has been called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Munsif in February 1958. After fourteen years of service the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Subordinate Judge in July, 1972. In February, 1973 he was permitted by the High Court to cross the first efficiency bar. On 11-2-1974 he was allowed to cross the second efficiency bar. The necessary notification to this effect was issued on 22-1-1975. In April, 1974 the petitioner was posted to Nawadah as Chief Judicial Magistrate. According to the petitioner, he should have been confirmed with effect from 7-1-1976 when there was vacancy in the rank of substantive Subordinate Judges. As is usual, the question of confirmation of the petitioner as Subordinate Judge was not taken up in January, 1976. In fact, no officer of his batch was confirmed at that time. The want of confirmation would not stand in the way of the High Court in tb.3 matter of recommending names to State Government for promotion to the rank of Additional District Judges. According to the petitioner, he was by-passed with the innocuous and cryptic remark "not fit for promotion". The High Court not having recommended his name for promotion, the State Government naturally did not promote him as Additional District Judge, Before I proceed to dwell upon the attitude of the High Court and the State Government in the matter of his promotion, it would be useful to dispose of one of the submissions urged very vehemently on behalf of the petitioner. That relates to the mala fide action of respondent No. 3. Mala fide of respondent No. 3
4. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is, that respondent No. 3 was an influential member of the Standing Committee. Being Judge Incharge Administrative Department, his mala fide action was the cause for the petitioner not being recommended by the High Court for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner has averred that he was a very good officer with brilliant record of service for
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
