LAWS(PAT)-1993-10-9

RANJIT PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On October 01, 1993
RANJIT PRASAD SINHA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner, who at the relevant time was an officiating Subordinate Judge posted as Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi and who was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for treating the order contained in Memo No. 380 V-92/dated Patna the 29th March, 1983 of this Court (Respondent No.2) as contained in Annexure-l as non-est void, inoperative, arbitrary, un-constitutional and violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to treat him to be promoted as an Additional District Judge and District Judge retrospectively in view Of the notification dated 25-2-1979 of the Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Bihar as contained in Annexure-2 and also to grant consequential benefits of promotion and other advantages which he would hive been entitled in due course and to pay all salaries and allowances during the period in .which he was under suspension and to award compensation of rupees ten lacs to him.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as Munsif in the Bihar Civil Service (Judical Branch) in the year 1958 and was promoted as an Additional Subordinate Judge, in July, 1972, he crossed his first efficiency bar in the year 1973 and the second efficiency bar in 1975 with effect from l1-2-1974, ho was also Chief Judicial Magistrate and Assistant Sessions Judge, Nawadah from April, 1974 and was drawing maximum salary of Subordinate Judge and his confidential remark for the year 1975-76 was excellent ; that his trouble started in the year 1976 when he incurred the displeasure of the then Hon'ble Judge, Administrative Department of this Court on account of his pretest, when the name of his relation was recommended for the special post of Under Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar against his rightful claim and seniority ; that in January, 1976 several Subordinate Judges were confirmed except him though he was fit to be confirmed against several vacancies existing at that time ; that further in August, 1976 names of some Subordinate Judges above him were recommended for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge leaving some posts vacant for his promotion but his name was not recommended at that time ; that on 2-5-1977 he was superceded though eligible and no adverse report of any kind was communicated to him ; that no reason was assigned by this Court for his supersession and hence Respondent No. 1, the State of Bihar, after examining the excellent service record and finding that the Officers having inferior service record than the petitioner, were recommended for promotion as Additional District Judge, demanded reasons from this Court for superceding him but this Court vide letter .dated 2-8-1977 refused to disclose the reasons and took a stand that the Government has no authority to ask for reasons for supersession from this Court ; that respondent No. 1 did not accept the stand of this Court and insisted for disclosing the reasons ; that on 9-2-1978 this Court confirmed the Subordinate Judges, junior to him and took up a stand before the Government that since he is not a confirmed Subordinate Judge, he could not be promoted as an Additional District Judge : that the Government was not convinced as the names of all the un-confirmed Subordinate Judges were recommended for promotion and accordingly vide notification dated 25-2-1978, as contained in Annexure-2, kept one post reserved for him and asked this Court to disclose reasons for supersession or to recommend his name for promotion as an Additional District Judge ; that as this Court did not recommend his name for promotion, he filed a writ application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed in the year 1979 as the petitioner had the opportunity of representing him before the Governor and the post of an Additional District Judge was kept reserved for him ; on 20-2-1980 the petitioner filed representation to the Governor that on 21-2-1980 a departmental proceeding was started against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinatfer referred to as the 'Rules' and he was put under pension by this Court ; that the proceeding was initiated relating to some manufactured anonymous letters of the year 1975-76, the contents of which was not disclosed to him nor was he supplied copies thereof, when demanded ; that he also challenged the order of his suspension as illegal and arbitrary submitting his written statement within a fortnight stating further, inter alia, that the enquiry was illegal and bebarred under the Government circular besides the allegations made in the judicial orders of the year 1974-75 could not be enquired into in such proceedings ; that the petitioner demanded copies of the alleged anoymous letter enquired into cofidentially and the relevant materials including the evidence of the witnesses collected against him but were not supplied to him nor was he served with the notice of hearing of the proceeding ; that the departmental enquiry was delayed for more than six months against the Government circular and thus the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1980 ; that in the aforementioned writ application this Court passed an order on 16-3-1980 directing the Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi, who was enquiring officer, to conclude the departmental proceeding and send his report to this Court ; that at that time Sri A.P. Sinha was the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who had examined two witnesses during enquiry but despite the aforementioned direction of the Judicial side of this Court did not conclude the enquiry and submit a report ; that later on Shri B.P. Griyaghey, another Judicial Commissioner, concluded the enquiry ex parte and submitted report on 4-9-1981 even without examining a single material witness or without even discussing the written statement filed by him holding that the charges have been proved ; that on 30-3-1982 this Court issued second show-cause notice of dismissal to him, as contained in Annexure-5 ; that C.W.J.C. No. 3068 of 1980 was dismissed by this Court without considering his plea that the second show-cause notice was illegal and without jurisdiction ; that the petitioner filed his reply to the second show-cause on the administrative side of this Court ; which was rejected on 25-3-1983 vide Annexure-1 without giving reasons awarding punishment of censor, withholding of increments and promotion for two years and salary for the period of suspension, though withholding of salary for suspension period after re-instatement is not provided in the Rules ; that against the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Governor of Bihar on 10-5-1983 but this Court refused to forward the same to the Governor of Bihar, who was his appointing authority ; that thereafter Respondent No. 1 took opinion of Shri K.P. Verma, the then Advocate-General but took no decision even after his representation dated 28-4-1985 ; that thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12263 of 1985, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to move this Court for grant of writ in the nature of mandamus of other appropiate directions and orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, vide order dated 31-10-1985, as contained in Annexure 6 ; that thereafter the petitioner filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6215 of 1985 before this Court which was dismissed on 17-2-1986 holding, inter alia, that no appeal lies before the Governor against the administrative order of this Court ; that petitioner thereafter filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3723 of 1986 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which by order dated 10-9-1986 (as contained in Annexure-7) Special Leave was granted, though confined to the question whether an appeal lies to the Governor against the order dated 16-9-1986 of the High Court, the Leave Petition was converted as Civil Appeal No. 3535 of 1986 during hearing of which the learned Counsel for this Court took up a stand that the Rules aforesaid do not apply to the members of Judicial Service, and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 16-7-1987, as contained in Annexure-8. observing, inter alia, that neither party was able to indicate as to what was the Rule which will govern the judicial service to which he belonged and that the present regrettable state of confusion mus be ended ; that thereafter the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 448 of 1988 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing the order of this Court dated 25-3-1983, which by order dated 26-3-1990, as contained in Annexure-9, was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to him to approach this Court and hence this writ application.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it has been stated, inter alia, that the points raised in this writ application have already been raised earlier in this Court as well as in the Hon'ble Supreme , Court of India and all have been negatived and is not maintainable as the prayers made have already been rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; that this Court is the final authority to recommend the name of the suitable Judicial Officers for promotion and it is absolutely false to say that there was nothing against the petitioner ; that the allegations made against him, after due enquiry, were found to be correct ; that the services of the Officers of the Subordinate Courts are governed by the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and that full facts regarding application of the said Rules were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ; that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings and" the punishment was inflicted in the enquiry which had to be concluded exparte because the petitioner opted not to appear before the Enquiring Officer ; that the control over the Judicial Officers of Courts subordinate to the High Court has been vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which is absolute and complete, subject only to limitation as is imposed in Article 235 of the Constitution of India itself and the High Court can hold enquiry against such Judicial Officers, impose punishment, other than dismissal or removal or reduction in rank ; that any law or rule taking away or impairing the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution being in conflict with Article 235 has to be read down ; that the control of the High Court being absolute any punishment other than the one in which High Court has to recommend to the State Government for final order, is absolute and any other authority has no jurisdiction to interfere with such order in any manner and it is, therefore, obvious that provision of Appeal against the order of punishment, other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank passed by the High Court, is inconsistent with the object of Article 235 and, therefore, has to be held to be in-applicable and the provision for appeal in the rules is redundant as the order passed by the High Court is final and binding and no other authority can interfere with the same, be in appeal or otherwise, and accordingly the obvious conclusion is that no right of appeal survives to the judicial officers against the order imposing minor punishment of the category referred to above ; and that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is fit to be dismissed. Several statements have been made in the counter-affidavit on the merits of the claim of the petitioner supported by various documents but we do not consider necessary to State all of them.