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

PETITIONER: R.M. GURJAR AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) ANAND, A.S. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 2000            1992 SCR  (3) 775  1992 SCC  (4)  10        JT 1992 (4)   586  1992 SCALE  (2)148

ACT:      Civil Services:      Gujarat  Civil  Services (Discipline &  Appeal)  Rules, 1971:  Rules  7(3), 18 and 23-Ministerial staff  working  in Civil Courts-Disciplinary proceedings-Punishment imposed  by District Judge-Review by High Court under its Administrative jurisdiction-Enhancement of punishment-Whether valid.

HEADNOTE:      Disciplinary  proceedings  were initiated  against  the appellants  who  were  working in the Civil  Courts  on  the charge  that they falsely identified three persons before  a judicial  Magistrate.   Both  the  appellants  admitted  the charge  against  them and prayed for  mercy.   The  District Judge  imposed  the  penalty  of  withholding  their  future promotions  with  permanent  effect.   The  High  Court,  in exercise  of its powers under Rule 23 of the  Gujarat  Civil Services (Discipline  & Appeal) Rules,  1971,  enhanced  the penalty to that of removal from service.      The  appellants challenged their removal from  service, by  filing a Writ Petition before the High Court.  The  High Court  held  that under Article 235 of the  Constitution  of India, the constitutional control of High Court extended  to the  ministerial officers and servants on the  establishment of  sub-ordinate  courts  also.  Thus, the  removal  of  the appellants from service was upheld.  Being aggrieved against the  said  judgment  of  the  High  Court,  the   appellants preferred the present appeal by special leave.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court,      HELD: 1. The High Court was within its jurisdiction  on the  administrative  side to enhance the punishment  of  the appellants  in exercise of its powers under rule 23  of  the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971.      2.1.  The District Judge, being the Head of office  and the   appointing  authority  of  the  appellants,  was   the disciplinary authority under Rule                                                   776 7(3). The District Judge imposed the punishment of  stoppage of  promotion on permanent basis.  Reading rules  18(1)  and 18(2)  together  it is obvious that an  order  imposing  the penalty  of  stoppage  of promotion is  appealable  and  the

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

appeal  lies before an officer immediately superior  to  the officer  who made the order.  In this case the order  having been made by the District Judge, the appeal would lie to  an officer/authority  immediately  superior  to  the   District Judge.      The    District    Judge    is     under     the administrative control  of  the High Court.  Therefore,  the High  Court  is  the immediate  superior  authority  to  the District  Judge  and  the appeal against the  order  of  the District Judge in this case would lie to the High Court.      2.2  Rule  23  empowers  the  appellate  authority   to exercise  the power of review.  It is, thus, clear that  the High  Court being the appelate  authority had the  power  to review  the  order of the District Judge.   Admittedly,  the High  Court  passed  th order enhancing  the  punishment  in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the Rules.      State  of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977] 2  SCC  12 and  The  State  of West Bengal v.  Nripendra  Nath  Bagchi, [1966] 1 SCR 771, relied on.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2107 of 1977.      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  4.5.1977  of  the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2265  of 1974.      S.K. Dholakia and P.C. Kapur for the Appellants.      Anip   Schthey   and  Ms.  Rashmi  Dhariwal   for   the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KULDIP  SINGH,  J.  R.M. Gurjar and  D.N.  Jadhav  were working  as  junior  clerks in the Civil  Courts  under  the administrative  control of District Judge, Broach,  Gujarat. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on  the charge  that they falsely identified three persons before  a Judicial  magistrate.  At the enquiry both of them  admitted the charge and prayed for mercy.  The District Judge by  the order dated June 5, 1974 imposed the penalty of  withholding their  future  promotions with permanent effect.   The  High Court in exercise of its powers under rule 23  of                                                   777 the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 (the Rules) enhanced the penalty and imposed the  punishment of  removal from service.  It is not disputed that the  High Court  enhanced the penalty after affording  opportunity  to the two officials in accordance with law.  Gurjar and Jadhav challenged  the  order  of their removal by way  of  a  writ petition  under  Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India before  the  High  Court.  The learned  single  Judge  after considering the relevant provisions including the historical background of various constitutional reforms appears to have been  of  the  view that the source of  power  to  pass  the impugned order lay in the constitutional control of the High Court under Article 235.  However, the difficulty which came in  the  way of the learned single Judge to hold so  was  on account  of  the judgment of a Division Bench in  Ramesh  C. Mashruvala  v. State, (16 G.L.R. 277) wherein  the  Division Bench  had given a restricted interpretation to Article  235 and  had  confined  its  applicability  to  persons  in  the judicial  service  of  the  State  only.   Accordingly,  the learned  single Judge, referred the following two  questions to be decided by a larger Bench:          "(1)  Whether the High Court on its  administrative          side  has  jurisdiction  to  enhance  the   penalty

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

        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 in Article 236  (b)          or whether the ministerial officers and servants on          the  establishment  of the subordinate  courts  are          also ultimately subject to such control?"      While the reference was pending before the Full  Bench, the decision in Mashruvala case was set aside by this  Court in State of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977] 2 SCC 12  and it was held that the Registrar of the Small causes Court was judicial  officer in the judicial service of the  State  and came within the scope and intend of Articles 235 and 236  of the Constitution of India.                                                   778      The  Full Bench of the High Court speaking through  the Acting Chief Justice primarily dealt with question No. 2 and came to the conclusion that the "control" under Article  235 of  the  Constitution of India extends  to  the  ministerial officers   and   servants  on  the  establishment   of   the subordinate   Courts   also.   The  second   question   was, accordingly,  answered  against  the  petitioners.   On  the interpretation  of  Article  235 and  the  rules  the  first question  was  also decided against the  petitioners.   This appeal  by way of special leave is against the  judgment  of the Full Bench of the High Court.      From the judgment of the Full Bench it transpires  that though  the  Bench entered into lengthy  discussion  on  the interpretation of the constitutional provisions contained in chapter  VI of the Constitution it did not elaborately  deal with  the relevant rules which have a direct bearing on  the first  question.   We, therefore, consider it  desirable  at this  stage, to first deal with the relevant  provisions  of the  Gujarat  Civil Service (Discipline and  Appeal)  Rules, 1971.  The relevant rules are extracted hereunder:          Rules 7,18,21 and 23 of the Rules are as under:          "7(1).............          (2)............          (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rules          (1) and (2), Heads of Departments and Heads of Offices          may impose any of the penalties mentioned in rule 6          upon  any  Government  servant  of  subordinate  or          inferior service serving under them whom they  have          power to appoint.          (4)............          18. Orders against which appeal lies - (1)  Subject          to the provisions of rule 22, a Government  servant          may  prefer  an appeal against all or  any  of  the          following orders, namely:-          (i)  an order of suspension made or demand to  have          been made under rule 5.          (ii)  an  order  imposing  any  of  the   penalties          specified   in   rule  6  whether   made   by   the          Disciplinary Authority or by any appellate                                                   779          or reviewing authority.          (iii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under          rule 6.          (iv).............          (d) has the effect of his non-promotion to a higher

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

        post, or          18(2)  An appeal referred to in sub-rule (1)  shall          lie  to  an  officer immediately  superior  to  the          officer who made the order:          ................................          21(1)...........          (2)  In  the  case of an appeal  against  an  order          imposing any of the penalties specified in rule  6,          or  enhancing  any penalty imposed under  the  said          rule, the appellate authority shall consider :          ....................................................          (d)  whether  the  penalty  imposed  is  excessive,          adequate  or  inadequate, and,  after  consultation          with  the  Commission,  if  such  consultation   is          necessary in the case, pass orders-          (i)   setting   aside,  reducing,   confirming   or          enhancing the penalty, or          (ii).............          Provided that-          (i)................          (ii)  on order for enhancing the penalty  shall  be          passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity          of  making any representation which he may wish  to          make against such enhanced penalty, and          ...................................................          23.  Review of orders in disciplinary  cases.   The          authority to                                                   780          which  an appeal against an order imposing  any  of          the penalties specified in rule 6 lies may, of  its          own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any          proceeding  under these rules and review any  order          passed  in such a case and, may after  consultation          with  the  Commission where  such  consultation  is          necessary,  pass such order as it deems fit  as  if          the  Government  servant had  preferred  an  appeal          against such order:          Provided  that no action under this rule  shall  be          taken after the expiry of a period of more than six          months from the date of such order."      The  District Judge, being the Head of office  and  the appointing authority of the appellants, was the disciplinary authority under rule 7(3) of the Rules.  The District  Judge imposed the punishment of stoppage of promotion on permanent basis. Reading rule 18(1) and 18(2) of the Rules together it is obvious that an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of promotion  is  appealable  and the  appeal  lies  before  an officer  immediately  superior to the officer who  made  the order.   In  this  case the order having been  made  by  the District Judge, the appeal would lie to an officer/authority immediately  superior to the district judge.   The  district judge is under the administrative control of the High Court. The  nature  and extent of control which vests in  the  High Court  under  Article 235 of the Constitution of  India  has been  authoritatively determined by this Court in The  State of  West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, [1966] 1 SCR  771. Therefore,  undisputably,  the High Court is  the  immediate superior  authority  to the district judge  and  the  appeal against  the order of the district judge in this case  would lie  to the High Court.  Rule 23 of the Rules  empowers  the appellate authority to exercise the power of review.  It is, thus, clear on the plain reading or the Rules that the  High Court being the appellate authority had the power to  review the order of the District Judge.  Admittedly, the High Court passed the order enhancing the punishment in exercise of its

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

powers under rule 23 of the Rules.  Therefore, we hold  that the   High  Court  was  within  its  jurisdiction   on   the administrative  side  to  enhance  the  punishment  of   the appellants  in exercise of its powers under rule 23  of  the Rules.      On  the interpretation placed by us on the  Rules,  the answer  to the first question has to be in the  affirmative. We are also of the  opinion that                                                   781 the  answer to the second question as rendered by  the  Full Bench of the High Court is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference.  The appeal consequently fails and  is dismissed but with no order as to costs. G.N.                                       Appeal dismissed.                                                   782