M M SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Rule has been registered under Article 226 of the Constitution on the basis of a letter dated 18.10.93 of the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta to the Register (J), Gauhati High Court and the question raised in this Civil Rule is as to whether the control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution extends to the ministerial staff of District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto.

(2.) THE facts very briefly are that a complaint was made by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta to the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta by a letter dated 10.05.90 that Shri Keshab Chandra Das, Executive Assistant, working in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta (respondent No.4) has informed him by a written report dated 13.05.90 that an amount Rs. 30, 000/- was missing from the custody locker. THE District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, thereafter ordered a preliminary enquiry and the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta, made a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report. On the basis of the said report, the respondent No. 4 and one Shri Mahendra Nath Das, Sheristadar, were placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. In the said disciplinary proceedings, the respondent No. 4 was found to be guilty of charge No.4, while Shri Mahendra Nath Das was found to be guilty of negligence. Both of them were asked to show-cause as to why penalties under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, shall not be imposed on them. After the replies to the show-cause notices were filed Shri Mahendra Nath Das, Sheristadar, was censured and reinstated to his post of Sheristadar. THE respondent No.4, however, was dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam, which was allowed by order dated 19.03.93 of the Secretary, Judicial Department , Government of Assam, with the direction that the respondent No. 4 be reinstated in service. THE District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, thereafter, filed a review petition dated 29.03.93, but the same was rejected by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam, by his judgment and order dated 29.03.93. THE District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, has thereafter written the letter dated 18.10.93 to the Registrar (J) of this Court questioning the authority of the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam, to set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that such authority affected the independence of the judiciary.

(3.) MR. B. D. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, did not seriously dispute the control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution over the District Courts and the Courts subordinate thereto, but submitted that on merits, the appeal had been correctly decided by the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of Assam and hence the respondent No. 4 is entitled to reinstatement in the service as per the appellate order.