( 1 ) IN this petition the two petitioners who were appointed as class III employees on the establishment of the Civil Courts at Rajpipla and Jambusar in the District of Broach by the District Judge Broach have challenged the final order of the District Judge along with the order of the High Court at Annexures G and H as per which they have been removed from service. The petitioners had been chargesheeted by (he District Judge on December 22 1971 for falsely identifying three persons before the then Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate F. C. Sivli as per Ex. A. In the disciplinary enquiry which was instituted on this chargesheet at Annexure A the petitioners had admitted the charges and prayed for mercy. The District Judge by the order dated June 5 1974 at Annexure D passed the order to withhold future promotions with permanent effect. The High Court however considered the punishment grossly inadequate and therefore under Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971 hereinafter referred to as the rules issued a show cause notice at Annexure E on September 6 1974 to enhance the punishment to one of removal from service. After hearing the petitioners the High Court passed an order at Annexure G dated December 30 1974 observing that it was not safe to continue persons like the delinquents who hove committed a serious and grave misconduct in the service of the judicial Department. The penalty imposed upon them by the competent authority being grossly inadequate it was considered that adequate punishment looking to the serious and grave misconduct of the petitioners could not be less than removal from service. Accordingly the District Judge Broach by the order at Annexure H in pursuance of the High Courts order has removed from Government service the two petitioners with effect from December 23 1974 It is these wo orders at Annexures G and H by the High Court and by the District Judge removing the present petitioners which are challenged in this petition.

( 2 ) WHEN the matters came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge as the question arose as to the competence of the High Court to review the penalty by exercising powers under Rule 23 and as the relevant rule merely provided this review power being exercised by the authority to which an appeal against the order imposing the penalty would lie and as no such authority could be clearly spelt out in the rules the learned Single Judge after considering the relevant provisions and the historical background of the various constitutional reforms wanted to rest the source of this power in the Constitutional control of the High Court under Article 235 consistent with which alone all these disciplinary rules could be properly read. The difficulty which however the learned Single Judge experienced was that a Division Bench in RAMESH C. MASHRUVALA V. STATE 16 G. L. R. 277 had in the case of Registrar Small Causes Court proceeded on a restricted interpretation of Article 235 as being confined only to persons in the Judicial service of the State as defined in Article 236 (b) on misapprehension of the true ratio of STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. NRIPENDRA NATH BAGCHIS CASE A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 447. This being the question of wide public importance as to the true interpretation of Article 235 which embodied the cardinal principle of the independence of judiciary he has made this reference to this larger bench formulating the following two questions in this reference: (1) Whether the High Court on its administrative side has jurisdiction to enhance the penalty imposed by the District Judge upon a member of the ministerial staff of the subordinate Court in exercise of the powers of review conferred by Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules) 1971 ? (2) Whether the control vested in the High Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution is exercisable only over members of the judicial service of the State as defined