M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.

1. Ajit Kumar, the petitioner herein, who was working as a Subordinate Judge in Garhwa, was removed from service by an order issued by the Governor, State of Jharkhand dated 31.07.2003 on the basis of the resolution of the Full Court (High Court) recommending for removal of the petitioner from service.

2. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following two prayers:

(i) Praying for quashing the order of removal passed by the Governor on 31.07.2003 from service with effect from 31.07.2003, which was issued finding that his service is no longer required in public interest;

(ii) Praying for quashing of the resolution and recommendation of the Full Court through memo dated 24.07.2003 for removal of the petitioner by the Governor without inquiry as the High Court Full Court felt that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold inquiry in the interests of the institution and also in public interest, thereby dispensing with enquiry under proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

3. The short facts, which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as temporary Munsif by Government of their Bihar by the order dated 10.06.1988;

(ii) Thereupon his services was confirmed by a notification dated 09.12.1994;

(iii) After bifurcation of the State, he was taken to Jharkhand Cadre and from 21.04.2001, he has been working as a Munsif Magistrate, Godda and thereafter was transferred to Garhwa.

(iv) By the notification dated 14.08.2002, he was promoted as Subordinate Judge, Garhwa.

(v) On 05.05.2003, Justice Hari Shankar Prasad, Zonal Judge inspected the Garhwa Civil Court and inspected the records relating to the petitioner also and submitted his confidential report to the Chief justice against the petitioner that the petitioner did not use to prepare judgments on his own and on the other hand he will get it prepared through some body else and deliver the judgments.

(vi) The Honble Chief Justice, after going through the report, referred the matter to the Full Court for considering for appropriate action.

(vii) On 18.06.2003, the Full Court, after considering the confidential report and the report of the Zonal Judge, resolved that the petitioner can be recommended for removal from service, without enquiry as it felt that it is not practicable in the interest of institution to hold an inquiry since it may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by him; Consequently, the Full Court invoked the proviso to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with the inquiry as against the petitioner;

(viii) Accordingly, the resolution recommending for removal of the petitioner was sent by memo dated 24.07.2003 to the Governor;

(ix) The Governor, after perusal of records, accepted the High Courts resolution and recommendation and passed an order on 31.07.2003, thereby removing the petitioner from service as his service is no more required in public interest;

(x) Thereupon the petitioner received the order of removal by the Governor dated 31.07.2003;

(xi) Challenging the same the petitioner filed this writ petition. Originally, he sought for the single prayer for quashing the order of removal dated 31.07.2003;

(xii) During the pendency of the writ petition, the Registrar General of the High Court, one of the respondents, filed a counter enclosing therewith Full Court resolution and recommendation, stating that the order of removal by the Governor was passed on the basis of the said recommendation and resolution through the memo dated 24.07.2003 made by the Full Court by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India to dispense with the inquiry;

(xiii) The petitioner, thereupon, was advised to file an amendment petition for seeking for the second prayer for quashing the memo dated 24.07.2003 as well. Accordingly, he filed the petition adding the one more prayer challenging the High Courts reso