http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESH CHANDRA MASHRUWALA

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/01/1977

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1619            1977 SCR  (2) 710  1977 SCC  (2)  12  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1992 SC2000  (2)

ACT:             Disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court--The  Regis-         trar  of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad appointed by  the         Governor, if is "in judicial service" and subject to  disci-         plinary  jurisdiction  of the High  Court--The  question  of         "appointing  authority"  is not relevant in  regard  to  the         disciplinary  jurisdiction of the High Court--Articles  235,         and  236 of the Constitution of India, Sections  9(1)  (aa),         13,  14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency Small Causes  Court  Act         1882--Scope of.             Reasonable opportunity--Failure to give copies of  docu-         ments demanded is contrary to the provisions of Art. 311.

HEADNOTE:             Pursuant  to the departmental enquiry conducted  by  the         High  Court and on its recommendation, the Gujarat  Governor         dismissed  the  respondent from the  service  of  Registrar,         Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad.  The respondent challenged by         way of a writ the said order contending: (1) The High  Court         was not his appointing authority and he being the member  of         general  State service, the High Court has no  authority  to         initiate proceedings, the appointment of  the enquiry  offi-         cer,  framing of charges of misconduct and taking  discipli-         nary proceedings etc. (2) The High Court has no authority to         direct  further enquiry to be made in respect  of  recording         the  statement of one Mr. Bhatt, an advocate or to  consider         the  reports  made by the enquiry officer and  come  to  the         conclusion about his guilt or to issue show cause notice  of         punishment.  (3)  The direction of the High Court  that  the         statement 0f Mr. Bhatt is recorded was passed without  hear-         ing  the petitioner and this violated the rules  of  natural         justice. (4) The failure to give copies of certain documents         demanded   by  the  petitioner deprived him of a  reasonable         opportunity  to defend himself and, therefore,  the  enquiry         was contrary to the provisions of Art. 311 of the  Constitu-         tion; and (5) .The impugned order was passed by the  Govern-         ment  without consulting the Public Service  Commission  and         the same was illegal and bad in law.             The  High Court held: (1 ) The post of the Registrar  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       Small  Causes  Court  does not fall  within  the  expression         "judicial  service" within the meaning of Art. 235  and  (2)         The  High  Court has no disciplinary jurisdiction  over  the         Registrar in view of the fact that the High Court is not the         "appointing authority".         Accepting  the State’s appeal by certificate  and  remitting         the case, the Court,             HELD:  (1 ) The Registrar of the Court of .Small  Causes         is  a person holding a civil judicial post inferior  to  the         post  of  District  Judge and he  is  in  judicial  service.         Sections  9(1),  13  14, 33 to 36 of  the  Presidency  Small         Causes Court Act, 1882 indicate in no uncertain manner  that         the  Registrar  of  Small Causes  Court  exercises  judicial         powers,  Inasmuch as the Registrar Small Causes Court  exer-         cises  his  judicial function, he is a judicial  officer  in         judicial  service  and comes within the scope and intent  of         Art. 235 and 236.  [711 H, 712 G-H]         (2) The High Court was in error in  considering the question         of  "appointing  authority"  as relevant in  regard  to  the         disciplinary  jurisdiction  of the High Court  and  also  in         holding that it had no power to order disciplinary  proceed-         ings.  The High Court abdicated its own disciplinary  juris-         diction.  The High Court is the competent authority to  hold         departmental enquiries.  [711 D-E, 713 A-C].            High  Court of Punjab & Haryana etc. v. State of  Haryana         and  Ors.  [1975] (3) SCR 365 and Shamsher Singh &  Anr.  v.         State of Punjab [1975] (1) SCR 814, referred to.         711             (3) In the instant case the enquiry was contrary to  the         provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution due to the  fail-         ure  to  give copies of certain documents  demanded  by  the         Registrar, thus deprived him of a reasonable opportunity  to         defend himself.   [713 G]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1975.             From  the  Judgment and Order dated the 19-4-74  of  the         Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 306 of 1973.         S.T. Desai and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.         I. N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar for Respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             RAY,  C.J.   This appeal is by certificate  against  the         judgment and order dated 19 April 1974 of the High Court  of         Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 306 of 1973.             The question for consideration in this. appeal is wheth-         er the petitioner before the High Court, who was the  Regis-         trar  of  the  Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad was subject  to         the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court.             The Registrar was appointed on 12 September, 1969 by  an         order of the Governor of Gujarat.             The  High Court said that in view of the fact  that  the         High  Court is not the appointing authority the  High  Court         has  no  disciplinary jurisdiction over the Registrar.             The  High  Court was in error in  considering  that  the         question  of appointing authority is relevant in  regard  to         the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court.             Under Article 235 the control over district Courts   and         Courts subordinate thereto including the posting and  promo-         tion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the         judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to         the  post  of  district judge shall be vested  in  the  High         Court.             The expression ’judicial service’ is defined in  Article

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       236  to. mean "a service consisting exclusively  of  persons         intended to fill the post of district judge and other  civil         judicial posts inferior to the post of district judge".             These  two  articles 235 and 236 are  relevant  for  the         purpose.  of ascertaining the extent of disciplinary  juris-         diction  of  the High Court. The Registrar of the  Court  of         Small  Causes  is  a person holding a  civil  judicial  post         inferior to the Post of district judge and is  ’in  Judicial         service.’             Reference  to  the presidency Small Causes  Courts   Act         1882   is  necessary to find out the  powers,  position  and         duties of the Registrar         712         of the Small Causes Court.   Section 13 of the Act states :.         "There shall be appointed an officer to be called the Regis-         trar of the Court who shall be chief ministerial officer  of         the Court".             The  other  provisions in the Act which  deal  with  the         Powers  of  the Registrar are to be found in  Sections  9(1)         2(aa), 14, 33, 34, 35 and 36, which read as follows:                       "9(1) (aa).  The High Court may, from time  to                       time,  by rules having the force of law empow-                       er the Registrar to hear and dispose of  unde-                       fended suits and interlocutory applications or                       matters.                       14 - The Provincial Government may invest  the                       Registrar  with  the powers of a  Judge  under                       this  Act for the trial of suits in which  the                       amount or value of the subject-matter does not                       exceed  twenty rupees.   And  subject  to  the                       orders  of the Chief Judge, any Judge of   the                       Small  Cause   Court may, whenever  he  thinks                       fit, transfer from his own file to the file of                       the  Registrar  any suit which the  latter  is                       competent to try.                       33  - Any non-judicial or  quasi-judicial  act                       which  the Code of Civil Procedure as  applied                       by  this Act requires to be done by  a  Judge,                       and any act which may be done by a Commission-                       er  appointed to examine and  adjust  accounts                       under section 394 of that Code as so  applied,                       may  be  done by the Registrar  of  the  Small                       Cause   Court or  by such  other  officer   of                       that  Court  as that Court may, from  time  to                       time, appoint in this behalf.                       34  -  The suits cognizable by  the  Registrar                       under section 14 shall be heard and determined                       by  him  in like manner in all respects  as  a                       Judge  of the Court might hear and  determine.                       the same.                       35  - The Registrar may  receive  applications                       for  the  execution of decrees  of  any  value                       passed  by the Court, and may commit and  dis-                       charge judgment debtors, and make any order in                       respect  thereof  which a Judge of  the  Court                       might make under this Act.                       36 - Every decree and order made by the Regis-                       trar  in any suit or proceeding shall be  sub-                       ject  to the same provisions in regard to  new                       trial as if made by a Judge of the Court."             These  provisions of the Act indicate in  no.  uncertain         manner that the Registrar of a Small Causes Court  exercises         judicial  powers, hears suits, passes decrees and an  appeal         is preferred from a decree of the Registrar.             Counsel for the appellant is right  in  his   contention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       that   the  Registrar, Small Causes Court,  inasmuch  as  he         exercises  judicial  functions,  is a  judicial  officer  in         Judicial  Service and comes within the scope and  intent  of         Articles 235 and 236.         713             The  High Court was in error in holding ’that  the  High         Court had no power to order disciplinary proceedings.  It is         significant that the High Court abdicated its own  discipli-         nary  jurisdiction.  The independence of the  judiciary  has         been emphasised by this Court in un-mistakable terms in  the         following two decisions:         1. High Court of Punjab  & Haryana etc. v. State of  Haryana         & Ors., reported in 1975 (3) S.C.R. 365 and         2.  Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,  reported   in         1975 (1) S.C.R.814.             The Gujarat High Court like other High Courts is  compe-         tent to enquire into such disciplinary matters.             In the present appeal there were five contentions before         the  High  Court  on behalf 0f  the  Registrar.   The  first         contention  falls  in view of our conclusion that  the  High         Court  is the competent authority to hold  departmental  en-         quiry.   The second contention of the Registrar was that the         High Court had no authority to direct further inquiry to  be         made  in respect of recording the statement of Bhatt  or  to         consider the reports made by the-inquiry officer and come to         a  conclusion about the guilt of the Registrar.  The   third         contention  of the Registrar was that the direction  of  the         High  Court   that the statement of Bhatt  be  recorded  was         passed  without hearing the Registrar and was  violative  of         the rule of natural justice.             It will appear that the High Court issued directions and         the statement of Bhatt was recorded by the Inquiry  Officer.         Bhatt  is  a Lawyer. He was busy in Court.    He  could  not         appear  before  the Inquiry officer on the  date  fixed  for         taking  his  evidence.  The  High  Court asked  the  Inquiry         Officer  to record the evidence of Bhatt. The Registrar  was         given  a copy of the statement of Bhatt after  recording  of         Bhatt’s evidence. The Registrar was given an opportunity  to         deal with the evidence of Bhatt. It is idle to contend  that         the Registrar ought to have been heard before the High Court         directed that the statement of Bhatt should be recorded.             The  fourth contention of the Registrar was  that  there         was  failure  to give copies of documents demanded  by  him;         therefore he did  not have reasonable opportunity to  defend         himself.    The High Court did not go into this question  in         view  of the fact that the High Court did not consider  this         question.    Counsel  for the Registrar  submitted  that  he         wanted to address the Court on the materials which were  not         available now.   We are of opinion that the matter should be         remitted to the High Court only on this question viz  ’fail-         ure  to  give copies of certain documents  demanded  by  the         Registrar  thus depriving him of a resonable opportunity  to         defend  himself and therefore, the  inquiry was contrary  to         the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution’.             The fifth contention that the impugned order was  passed         by  the Government without consulting  the  Public   Service         Commission  does not survive in view of our conclusion  that         the High Court is the competent authority to make departmen-         tal inquiry.         714             For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court         is  set aside and the matter is remitted to the  High  Court         for  consideration only of the fourth question as  indicated         above.         Parties will pay and bear their own costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       S.R.                    Appeal allowed and case remitted.         715