B RAMANJANCYULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected as a District Munsif by direct recruitment and was posted as Miinsif-Magistrate, Siddipet in Medak District. While he was working there, the High Court by its order dated 12-10-1976 appointed Sri V. Subrahmanyam, Sub-Judge. Medak at Sangareddy as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against him after framing specific charges against him. The Enquiry Officer accordingly framed charges, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges. The High Court accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service, After considering his explanation to the show cause notice, the High Court passed an order recommending that the petitioner should be removed from service. The Government agreed with the recommendation of the High Court and by its order dated 14 3-1978 terminated the temporary appointment of the petitioner and removed him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Government which was dismissed on 19 5-1979. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the Government dated 14-3-1978 and 19-5-1979.

(2.) When the writ petition came on for hearing before Gangadhara Rao and P.A. Choudary, JJ., it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the consideration of his case both before the issue of the show cause notice and after the submission of his explanation was done by a Committee of Judges and not by the whole body of Judges and hence the recommendation could not be said to be by the High Court and the order of the Government passed on such a recommendation is therefore illegal. Though this contention was not raised in the writ petition, it was permitted to be raised by the learned Judges as the Government pleader appearing for the High Court and the Government did not raise any objection. The learned Judges held that this contention should be considered by a Full Bench and accordingly passed the following order : 'As the matter is of considerable importance, we refer the following question for the consideration of a Full Bench consisting preferably of five Judges: "Whether a smaller body of Judges, not authorised by any Rules made under the Constitution, but appointed by the Chief Justice of the High Court in pursuance of the resolution dated 28-6-1969 could have legally acted in the name and on behalf of the High Court in a disciplinary matter relating to a member of the subordinate judiciary like the petitioner?" Accordingly this question has been placed foi consideration before this Full Bench.

(3.) It has all along been the practice of the Madras High Court and after the formitioa of the State of Andhra and the State of Audhra Pradesh, of the Andhra High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court to have committees of Judges to consider different matters relating to administration. In 1969 there was a proposal to have certain rules relating to the disposal of administrative business of the High Court as it was felt desirable to formulate some rules to regularise the practice followed in the matter of administrative business. This matter was considered at a meeting of all the Judges of the High Court on 21-3-1969 and it was resolved to continue the present practice without any need for framing any specific rules. (Reference to the date 28-6-1969 in order of reference made by the learned Judges is a mistake for 21-3-1969). Having regard to the above resolution, the existing practice was continued. On 10-4-1972 at a meeting of the Judges of the High Court another resolution was passed that the administrative work of the High Court should bs considered by different committees each dealing with a particular class of business. The first committee, viz., the Disciplinary Committee was to deal with the complaints and cases of corruption in the judiciary. By the same resolution the constitution of the different committees was left to the discretion of the Chief Justice. Accordingly, the Chief Justice from time to time has been constituting committees of Judges for deal ing with different classes of administrative business and in particular a Disciplinary Committee was also constituted and it is that Disciplinary Committee that considered the case of the petitioner.