P JEYAPAL Vs. GOVERNOR OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE termination of services of the appellant serving at the relevant as a Judicial First class Magistrate, by the Governor, on the recommendation of Court was called in question by the appellant through W.P.No.528 of 1990. THE Writ was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 16.2.1991, giving rise to the filing of this.

(2.) THE High Court had made a recommendation to the Governor to terminate the services the appellant when during a departmental enquiry ordered by the High Court and conducted by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, under directions of the High Court, it was found the charges against the appellant inter alia of demanding, receiving and accepting bribe certain persons, while discharging his functions as a Judicial Magistrate had established. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was considered by the Court and after following the formalities required by law, was accepted by the High On the acceptance of the report, as already noticed, a recommendation was made Governor to terminate the services of the appellant.

(3.) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the departmental enquiry should have been conducted by the High Court itself or that atleast one Judges of the High Court should have conducted the departmental enquiry and that conduct of the enquiry could not have been entrusted to a district Judge as the disciplinary authority could not delegate its powers to the District Judge. THE learned single Judge rejected the argument. It is a recognised principle of administrative jurisprudence statutory functionary exercising administrative powers does not delegate its functions by deputing a responsible and a competent officer to collect materials during a departmental enquiry and submit his report. This is the ordinary mode by which administrative power exercised. THE High Court had appointed the Enquiry Officer, who was to collect the and after enquiry, submit a report. THE report was considered by the High Court as THE recommendation was made by the High Court itself after accepting that report. THE Court, therefore, delegated no power to the Principal District Judge, but only delegated certain functions by deputing him to enquire and report Learned counsel has failed to the distinction between delegation of certain administrative job and delegation of power. THE appellant had a fair opportunity during the enquiry and even subsequently, when report was considered and the explanation of the appellant was taken into account High Court before recommending termination of the services of the appellant Governor. THE first argument, therefore, has no force.