Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Bose, J.
Anjan Kumar Mitra - Petitioner
Versus
The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 1525 of 2010
Decided On : 9-9-2013
For the Petitioner:Asish Sanyal, Uday Sankar Bhattacharya and Kaushik Mondal, Advocates
For the Respondents:Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, Dipayan Choudhury, Soumya Mojumdar and Souma Bhattacharya, Advocates
The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the appointing authority of the petitioner under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the 1983 Rules, and the petitioner violated the 1983 Rules by joining the DRAT without obtaining permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
Headnote:
HIGH COURT SERVICES - APPOINTING AUTHORITY - DEPUTATION - JURISDICTION - NOTICE - SHOW CAUSE - DEPUTY REGISTRAR (COURT & JUDICIAL) - DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - HIGH COURT SERVICE (DUTIES, RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYEES) RULES, 1983 (1983 RULES) - RULES 2(C) AND 5 - ARTICLE 229 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CHIEF JUSTICE AS APPOINTING AUTHORITY -PERMISSION FOR DEPUTATION - REVOCATION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO PROMOTIONAL BENEFITS ON REVERSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Registrar (Court & Judicial) in the High Court, applied for the post of Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on deputation basis. The Registrar, Original Side, forwarded his application to the concerned officer of the Central Government. The petitioner was selected and asked to join the post of Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). He obtained permission from the Registrar, Original Side, but did not seek permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, who was his appointing authority. The Hon’ble Chief Justice observed that the petitioner had joined the DRAT without seeking his permission and deserved to be dealt with seriously for misconduct. The petitioner was served with show-cause notices by the Undersecretary to the Government of India and the Registrar, Original Side, asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He filed a writ petition challenging the notices and seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that he had not violated the 1983 Rules by joining the DRAT.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the appointing authority of the petitioner under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the 1983 Rules. 2. The petitioner did not obtain permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice before joining the DRAT, which constituted a breach of the 1983 Rules. 3. The petitioner continues to be an employee of the High Court, and his migration to the DRAT was not sanctioned by the appropriate authority. 4. The notice issued by the Undersecretary to the Government of India Department of Financial Services is stayed permanently as the petitioner’s term of service is almost over. 5. The notice issued by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, dated 12th November, 2010 is not quashed as the petitioner remains an employee of this Court and allegations against him relate to breach of service regulations guiding the employees of this Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Hon’ble Chief Justice is the appointing authority of the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner violated the 1983 Rules by joining the DRAT without obtaining permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice? 3. Whether the notices issued by the Undersecretary to the Government of India and the Registrar, Original Side, are valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hon’ble Chief Justice is the appointing authority of the petitioner under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the 1983 Rules. 2. The petitioner violated the 1983 Rules by joining the DRAT without obtaining permission from the Hon’ble Chief Justice. 3. The notice issued by the Undersecretary to the Government of India Department of Financial Services is stayed permanently as the petitioner’s term of service is almost over. 4. The notice issued by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, dated 12th November, 2010 is not quashed as the petitioner remains an employee of this Court and allegations against him relate to breach of service regulations guiding the employees of this Court.
Final Decision: 1. The writ petition is partly allowed. 2. The notice issued by the Undersecretary to the Government of India Department of Financial Services is stayed permanently. 3. The notice issued by the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, dated 12th November, 2010 is not quashed.
The Judgment of the Court was as follows :
The writ petitioner in this proceeding, who was serving as Deputy Registrar (Court & Judicial) of this Court had applied for the post of Registrar in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on 24th March, 2010, which post he intended to serve on deputation basis. He had submitted his application before the Registrar, Original Side on 25th March, 2010, for the purpose of forwarding the same to the concerned officer of the Central Government. This was done, according to the petitioner, in terms of clause 6(ii) of the High Court Service (Duties, Rights and Obligations of Employees) Rules, 1983 (the 1983 Rules) which requires an existing employee of the Court to apply for any other post through his appointing authority. The advertisement for the post, the text of which has made Annexure "P2" to the writ petition also stipulated that the public institutions specified therein including the High Court could forward the applications of the willing officers whose services could be spared. There is controversy in this proceeding as to whether the Registrar, Original Side of this Court was empowered to forward the petitioners application in the capacity of his appointing authority or not. I shall deal with that aspect of the controversy later in this judgment.
The advertisement for the subject post in this case was issued in a publication entitled Employment News of 20-26th March, 2010. On 3rd May, 2010, a "no objection certificate" was issued by the Registrar Original Side of this Court. This was issued in response to a request by the petitioner made on 25th March, 2010, to the Registrar, Original Side. In that request letter, it was indicated that the post for which he was applying was that of Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal and "No objection" was given for that post only. The application of the petitioner was forwarded on 3rd May, 2010, by the Deputy Registrar (Administration) of this Court. The petitioner was granted permission to leave station and appear in the interview for the post by the Registrar, Original Side.
2. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar Administration and Registrar Original Side were informed by the Undersecretary (DRT) Department of Financial Services, Government of India that the petitioner was selected for appointment of in the of post Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal on deputation basis for a period of three years from the date he assumes charge of the post or until further order whichever was earlier. The petitioner was asked to send his acceptance and the said officer of this Court was asked to relieve the petitioner by 4th October, 2010, for reporting to the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (DRAT). The petitioner submitted his application dated 10th September, 2010, before the Registrar, Original Side for relieving him and for granting lien on his parent post for two years. The reason why his posting was in the DRAT and not in DRT has not been explained to this Court, but this issue is not of much significance for effective adjudication of this proceeding.
3. The said application was placed before His Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Chief Justice, observed that "the officer, had not taken permission of the Chief Justice as such the proposal cannot be approved. The officer might join at his risk". This observation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice appears from the endorsement made on a note sheet laid before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, dated 17th September, 2010, which was produced before me at the time of hearing by the learned Counsel for the High Court administration. Thereafter, on 20th September, 2010, the petitioner made a representation before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, tendering his apology, and he also indicated therein that he was not aware of the requirement of obtaining permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice as his appointing authority. The petitioner joined the post of Registrar, DRAT Kolkata on 5th Oc
