High Court Can't Terminate Services Of District Judge Or Impose Any Punishment Of Reduction In Rank Under Article 235: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which provides control to the High Courts over subordinate courts, the former cannot terminate the services of a District Judge or impose any punishment of reduction in rank.This power belongs to the Governor being the appointing authority under Article 311(1) of the Constitution. However, the word "control" in the Article gives the High Court power to make inquiries and disciplinary control and recommend imposition of such punishment. The observation was made in a petition directed against an order terminating the services of the petitioner, District Judge (Entry Level), under sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (for short, 'the HJS Rules') and on the recommendation of the High Court of Chhattisgarh.The petitioner was posted as Additional District Judge, Raipur. It is the petitioner's case that during the continuance of the probation period, he was served with a memo and an anonymous complaint against him and two other judicial officers. He was directed to submit his explanation on the complaint, which he did. However, he has not informed anything further and served with an order of termination in Rule 9(4) of the HJS Rules. The petitioner argued that it must have followed a full-fledged departmental inquiry, given the punitive nature of the termination. Furthermore, it was also submitted that the Standing Committee was not empowered to recommend the termination of the petitioner's services to the State Government. Only the Full Court of the High Court was authorized to recommend for termination of the petitioner's services, given the provisions under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Full Court has never authorized the Standing Committee as contained in terms of Rule 4-C under Chapter I-A of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the Rules of 2007') read with Rule 9(4) of the HJS Rules to recommend the termination of a probationer. The two issues before the Court in the instant matter were as follows: (a) Whether the Standing Committee constituted by notification dated 4-7-2015 would have competence and jurisdiction to recommend the termination of the petitioner's services (probationer) to the State Government in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the HJS Rules read with Article 235 of the Constitution of India?; (b) Whether the termination of the petitioner's services from the post of District Judge was punitive/stigmatic warranting holding of full-fledged inquiry against him into the allegations of misconduct?The Court perused Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It noted that while the posting and promotion of District Judges shall be in the hands of the Governor acting in consultation with the High Court,—the posting and promotion and granting of leave to officers of the State Judicial Service other than District Judges shall be exclusively in the hands of the High Court, subject, of course, to such appeals as are allowed by the law regulating conditions of the service.It noted that Article 235 of the Constitution of India speaks about two distinct powers: (a) the power of appointment, posting, and promotion of District Judges; and (b) second is the power of control over Judicial Officers of the State. It remarked, "The word "control" employed in Article 235 means not only the general superintendence of the working of the Courts but includes the disciplinary control of the judicial officers, i.e., the district judges and judges subordinate to him."It referred to the SC's decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, where it was held that the word "control" used in Article 235 of the Constitution means disciplinary control and dealt with the nature of the control vested in the High Court under Article 235 over district judges.Further reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. High Court of Orissa, where it was held that the control vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution is complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the manner of appointment including initial posting and promotion of District Judges and dismissal, removal, reduction in rank of District Judges.It observed that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises complete and exclusive control over the subordinate judiciary, including District Judge, but in case of termination and dismissal, the High Court can only recommend the imposition of punishment to the Governor and such recommendation would be binding on the Governor.On whether the Standing Committee was authorized to make a recommendation for termination under the HJS Rules, the Court referred to the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Batuk Dep Pati Tripathi & Anr. In the said case, it was held that the...

High Court Can't Terminate Services Of District Judge Or Impose Any Punishment Of Reduction In Rank Under Article 235: Chhattisgarh HC

Shrutika Pandey

Tags