G S NAGMOTI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the Mysore High court dated 10/07/1965 dismissing in limine the writ petition No. 1819 of 1965, filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant was working as the Principal Subordinate Judge in Bangalore in the year 1963. On 8/10/1963 one Anaappa Setty, P. W. 9, submitted a petition to the Director, Anti-corruption, Bangalore making certain allegations against the appellant regarding the disposal of a Godrej Steel almirah which had been attached in an execution case pending before the appellant. The petition was forwarded to the Mysore High court by the Director of Anti-corruption on 13/10/1963. Under the direction of the chief justice a preliminary enquiry was held by Mr. Justice Barayana Pai On receipt of his report, the High court addressed a letter to the government under S. O. No. NGC. 3163/63, dated 23/10/1963 requesting that the governor may be moved to appoint Mr. Justice K. S. HEGDE as Specially Empowered Authority to hold the departmental enquiry into the conduct of the appellant under Rule 11 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Accordingly the government of Mysore appointed Mr. Justice K. S. HEGDE as the Specially Empowered Authority to conduct the departmental enquiry. Thereafter Hegde J. , framed charges against the appellant, received his explanation and concluded the enquiry. The appellant was found guilty of the charge and in his report to the governor Hegde J. , recommended that the appellant may be reduced to the rank of a Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsiff) and that he shall not be considered for promotion as a Civil Judge, Senior Division (or as Subordinate Judge) for a period of two years. On receipt of the report the governor of Mysore considered the case of the appellant and held that the charge was fully established. By his order dated 17/05/1964 the governor of Mysore issued a notification under Article 3 II (2) of the Constitution to the appellant asking him to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. The appellant submitted his representation to the governor of Mysore. Thereafter the governor passed an order, dated 31/10/1964 directing compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appellant submitted an application dated 24/09/1964 to the Chief Minister of Mysore and another application dated 14/12/1964 to the governor of Mysore to review the order. The review application was rejected by order dated 1/04/1965 passed by the governor. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition No. 1313 of 1965 before the Mysore High court challenging the order of the governor and praying that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was dismissed by the High court on 16/07/1965 at the stage of admission without notice to the respondent.

(3.) It was argued on behalf of the appellant that disciplinary proceedings initiated by the governor on 17/05/1964 culminating in his order dated 31/10/1964 and 1/04/1965 holding that the charge against the appellant was proved and imposing punishment of compulsory retirement are in contravention of Article 235 of the Constitution and are liable to be set aside. It was pointed out that under Article 235 the Highcourt alone had the power to hold disciplinary proceedings against Officers belonging to the judicial service of a State holding posts inferior to that of a District Judge and no other Authority was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings or to impose punishment against Subordinate Judges. It was also contended that Rules 8, 9 and 11 of the Mysore Rules are ultra vires of Article 235 of the Constitution. Article 235 of the Constitution reads :