DURUKUMAR SHAMBHULAL CHANDNANI Vs. HONOURABLE SHRI CHITTAHTOSH MOOKERJEE THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIGH COURT BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Personal Secretary to a Honourable Judge of this High Court on the Appellate Side establishment of the High Court. He has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 9th January, 1990 of the Chief Justice of Bombay suspending him from service, in contemplation of a Departmental Inquiry against him. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 3 (1) (a) of the Bombay High Court Discipline and Appeal Rules. The petitioner has also challenged a show cause notice issued thereafter and a charge-sheet issued to him on the ground that since the original suspension order is bad in law, these "consequential" steps are also bad in law.

(2.) THE Bombay High Court Discipline and Appeal Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3 (1) (a) it is provided as follows :

(3.) UNDER Rule 7 (3) where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a High Court servant, the disciplinary authority is required to draw up or cause to be drawn up charges as set out in that sub-rule. Under sub-rule (4) these charges are then required to be served on the High Court servant concerned along with the statements and a list of documents and witnesses as set out therein and a written notice is required to be served on the High Court servant asking him to submit within a specified time, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. These provisions relate to the actual conduct of a departmental inquiry. These provisions have no application to a stage prior to the commencement of the departmental inquiry. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that by virtue of these provisions a preliminary inquiry is mandatory has no substance. The order of suspension clearly sets out that a complaint has been made against the petitioner as set out in the first paragraph of the suspension order. It also sets out that the Honourable the Chief Justice is prima facie satisfied that the allegation contained in the complaint require to be enquired into in a full-fledged departmental inquiry; and thus a departmental inquiry for the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner is contemplated. In our view, this order is in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3.