Holding

The High Court was within its jurisdiction to enhance the punishment under Rule 23, and Article 235's control extends to ministerial officers of subordinate courts.

Summary

Two junior clerks in the Gujarat civil courts, R.M. Gurjar and D.N. Jadhav, were found to have falsely identified three persons before a magistrate and admitted the charge. The District Judge, as disciplinary authority under Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, imposed a permanent stoppage of future promotions. The High Court, exercising its power of review under Rule 23, enhanced the penalty to removal from service, invoking Article 235 of the Constitution. The appellants challenged the removal by writ, and the High Court upheld it, leading to a full‑bench reference on two questions: (1) whether the High Court could enhance the penalty under Rule 23, and (2) whether Article 235’s control extends to ministerial officers of subordinate courts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was within its jurisdiction to enhance the punishment under Rule 23 and that Article 235 does cover ministerial staff, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, on its administrative side, has jurisdiction to enhance the penalty imposed by the District Judge on ministerial staff of subordinate courts under Rule 23 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971.
Whether the control vested in High Courts under Article 235 of the Constitution is exercisable only over members of the judicial service or also over ministerial officers and servants on the establishment of subordinate courts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 235

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsadministrative jurisdictionHigh Court reviewArticle 235ministerial staffpunishment enhancementGujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971

Judgment

R.M. GURJAR AND ANR. A
v.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

AUGUST 11, 1992

[KULDIP SINGH AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.J B

--( Civil Services:

Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971: Rules 7(3),

- 18 and 23-Ministerial staff working in Civil Courts-Disciplinary proceed-
ings-Punishment imposed by District Judge-Review by High Court under its
Administrative jurisdiction-Enhancement of punishment-Whether valid.
c

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellants who
were working in the Civil Courts on the charge that they falsely indentified
three persons before a judicial Magistrate. Both the appellants admitted Di
the charge against them and prayed for mercy. The District Judge im-
posed the penalty of withholding their furture promotions with permanent
effect. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Rule 23 of the
Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971, enhanced the
penalty to that of removal from se..Vice.
E
The appellants challenged their removal from service; by filing a
Writ Petiti'ln before the High Court. The High Court held that under
--. Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional control of High
Court extended to the ministerial officers and servants on the estab-
lishment of sub-ordinate courts also. Thus, the removal of the appellants
F
from service was upheld. Being aggrieved against the said judgment of the
~
High Court, the appellants preferred the present appeal by special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. The High Court was within its jurisdiction on the ad- G,
ministrative side to enhance the punishment of the appellants in exercise
or its powers under rule 23 or the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline &
---<
Appeal) Rules, 1971.

2.1. The District Judge, being the Head of office and the -appointing
authority or the appellants, was the disciplinary authority under Rule H
• 775
)-

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A 7(3). The District Judge imposed the punishment of stoppage of promo-
tion on permanent basis. Reading rules 18(1) and 18(2) together it is
obvious that an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of promotion is
appzolable and the appeal lies befcre an omcer immediately superior to
the omcer who made the order. In this aase the order having been made
by the District Judge, the appeal would lie to an officer/authority immedi-
B ately superior to the District Judge. The District Judge is under the
administrative control of the High Court. Therefore, the High Court is the
immediate superior authority to the District .Judge and the appeal against
the order of the District Judge in this case would lie to the High Court.

c 2.2. Rule 23 empowers the appellate authority to exercise the power
of review. It is, thus, ciear that the High Court being the appellate
authority had the power to review the order of the District Judge. Admit-
tedly, the High Court passed the order enhancing the punishment in
-
exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the Rules.

D State of Gujarat v. R.C. Mashruvala, [1977) 2 SCC 12 and The State
of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagch~ [1966) 1 SCR 771, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2107 of
1977.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated.4.5.1977 of the Gujarat High
Court in Special Civil Application No. 2265 of 1974.

F
S.K. Dholakia and P.C. Kapur for the Appellants.

Anip Schthey and Ms. Rashmi Dhariwal for the Respondents.
.....
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-~

KULOIP SINGH, J. R.M. Gurjar and D.N. Jadhav were working as
junior clerks in the Civil Courts under the administrative control of District
G Judge, Broach, Gujarat. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
them on the charge that they falsely identified three persons before a·
Judicial magistrate. At the enquiry both of them admitted the charge and
,_~
prayed for mercy. The District Judge by the order dated June 5, 1974
imposed the penalty of withholding their future promotions with per-
H manent effect. The High Court in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of
GURJAR v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 777

the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 (the Rules) A
--+- enhanced the penalty and imposed the. punishment of removal from ser-
vice. It is not disputed that the High Court enhanced the penalty after
affording opportunity to the two officials in accordance with law. Gurjar
and Jadhav challenged the order of their removal by way of a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The B
learned single Judge after considering the relevant provisions including the
historical background of various constitutional reforms appears to have
-.1.· been of the view that the source of power to pass the impugned order lay
in the constitutional control of the High Court under Article 235. However,
the difficulty which came in the way of the learned single Judge to hold so
c
- was on account of the judgment of a Division Bench in Ramesh C. Mash-
mvala v. State, (16 G.L.R. 277) wherein the Division Bench had given a
restricted interpretation to Article 235 and had confined its applicability
to persons in the judicial service of the State only. Accordingly, the learned
)._ single Judge referred the following two questions to be decided by a larger
Bench: I D

"(1) Whether the High Court on its administrative side has
jurisdiction to enhance the penalty imposed by the District
Judge upon a member of the ministerial staff of the subrodinate
Court in exercise of the powers of review conferred by rule 23 E
of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1971?

~ (2) Whether the control vested in the High Courts under
Article 235 of the Constitution is exercisable only over members
' of the judicial service of the State as defined in Article 236 (b) F
or whether the ministerial officers and servants on the estab-
y:
lishment of the subordinate courts are also ultimately subject
to such control?"

While the reference was pending before the Full Bench, the decision G
in Mashmvala case was set aside by this Court in State of Gujarat v. R.C.
Mashmvala, (1977) 2 SCC 12 and it was held that the Registrar of the Small
1(
Causes Court was a judicial officer in the judicial service of the State and
came within the scope and intend of Articles 235 and 236 of the Constitu-
tion of India. H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A The Full Bench of the High Court speaking through the Acting Chief ~
Justice primarily dealt with question No.2 and came to the conclusion that -
the "control" under Article 235 of the Constitution of India extends to the
ministerial officers and servants on the establishment of the subordinate
Courts also. The second questior;; was, accordingly, answered against the
B petitioners. On the interpretation of Article 235 and the rules the first
question was also decided against the petitioners. This appeal by way
of special leave is against the judgment of the Full Bench of the High
Court.

From the judgment of the Full Bench it transpires that though the
C Bench entered into lengthy discussion on the interpretation of the constitu-
tional provisions contained in chapter VI of the Constitution it did not
elaborately deal with the relevant rules which have a direct bearing on the
first question. We, therefore, consider it desirable, at this stage, to first deal
·-
with the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline and
D Appeal) Rules, 1971. The relevant rules are extracted hereunder:

Rules 7, 18, 21 and 23 of the Rules are as under:

"7. (1) ................. .

E (2) ..................... .

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rules (1) and
(2), Heads of Departments and Heads of Offices may impose
any of the penalties mantioned in rule 6 upon any Government
servant of subrodinate or inferior service serving under them
F whom they have power to appoint.

(4) .....................

18. Orders against which appeal lies. - ( 1) Subject to the
provisions of rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an
G appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely:-

(i) an order of suspension made or demand to have been made
under rule 5.

(ii) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 6
h whether made by the Disciplinary Authority or by any appellate
i
-{_

GURJAR v. HIGH CCi>URT OF GUJARAT [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 779

or reviewing 1Juthority.

(iii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under rule 6.

(iv) ........................

(d) has tlie effect of his non-promotion to a higher post, or B
18(2) An appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall lie to an officer
immediately superior to the officer who made the order:

c
- 21(1) .......................... .

(2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of
the penalties specified in rule 6, or enhancing any penalty
imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall
oo~d«: D

( d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or
inadequate, and, after consultation with the Commission, if
such consultation is necessary in the case, pass orders- E
(i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty,
or

(ii) ................. .
F
Provided that-
.'!t- .
' (i) .................... .

(ii) no order for enhancing the penalty shall be passed unless
the appellant is given an opportunity of malcing any repre- G
sentation which he may wish to make against such enhanced
penalty, and

23. Review of orders in disciplinary cases. - The authority to H

0
\
_)-

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties
specified in rule ,6 lies may, of its own motion or otherwise, call
for the record of any proceeding under these rules and review
any order passed in such a case and, may, after consultation
with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, pass
such. order as it deems fit as ·if the Government servant had
B preferred an appeal against such order:

Provided that no action under thi'i rule shall be taken after the
expiry of a period of more than six months from the date of
such order."
c
The District Judge, being the Head of office and the appointing
authority of the appellants, was the disciplinary authority under rule 7(3)
of the Rules. The District Judge imposed the punishment of stoppage of
-
promotion on permanent basis. Reading rule 18(1) and 18(2) of the Rules
D together it is obvious that an order imposing the penalty of stoppage of
promotion is appealable and the appeal lies before an officer immediately
superior to the officer who made the order. In this case the order having
been made by the District ·Judge, the appeal would lie to an officer/
authority immediately superior to the district judge. The district judge is
E under the administrative control of the High Court. The nature and extent
of control which vests in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitu-
tion of India has been authoritatively determined by this Court in The State
of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagch~ [1966] 1 SCR 771. Therefore,
undisputably, the High Court is the immediate superior authority to the
district judge and the appeal against the order of the district judge in 'this
F case would lie to the High Court. Rule 23 of the Rules empowers the
appellate authority to exercise the power of review. It is, thus, clear on the
plain reading of the Rules that the High Court being the appellate authority
had the. power to review the order of the District Judge. Admittedly, .the
High Court passed the order enhancing the punishment in exercise of its
G powers under rule 23 of the Rules. Therefore, we hold that the High Court
was within its jurisdiction on the administrative side to enhance the punish-
ment of the appellants in exercise of its powers under rule 23 of the Rules.

On the interpretation placed by us on the Rules, the answer to· the
H first question has to be in t~e affirmative. We are also of the opinion that

0
GURJAR v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 781

the answer to the second question as rendered by the FUll Bench of the A
High Court is unexceptionable and dues not call for any interference.
The apr>eal consequently fails and is dismissed but with no order as to
costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.

-