R M GURJAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline And 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 Guj LR 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:

(2.) While the reference was pending before the Full Bench, the decision in Mashruvala case (supra) 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 Cause Court was a 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.

(3.) 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.