Brief- Service – Preparation of judgments through third party – Removal from service – Legality (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant’s removal (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge.
Citation- Ajit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (Decided on 10.03.2011) MANU/SC/0207/2011
Court- Supreme Court of India
Held, reasons recorded by High Court were a legal and valid ground for not holding inquiry and there was no necessity of giving appellant any opportunity of hearing – Inspecting Judge in his report had stated that appellant would not prepare judgment on his own but get them prepared through somebody else before delivering judgment- High Court considered Inspecting Judge’s report and opined that it was not possible to hold an inquiry in case of appellant since if an inquiry was held same would lead to question of validity of several judgments rendered by appellant.
(ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction
Held, Full Court recommended removal of appellant from service and Governor invoked Article 311(2) of Constitution as holding of enquiry should lead to question of validity of several judgments delivered by appellant – Procedure and pre-conditions laid down for invoking extra-ordinary power under Article 311(2) (b) having been complied with and properly exercised within parameters of provisions, order passed by Governor removing appellant from services should not be held to be without jurisdiction and power – Appeal without merits – Appeal dismissed.
Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge
Held, under scheme of Indian Constitution, High Court was vested with power to take decision for appointment of sub-ordinate judiciary under Articles 234 to 236 of Constitution – High Court was also vested with power to see that high traditions and standards of judiciary were maintained by selection of proper persons to run district judiciary – If a person was found not worthy to be a member of judicial service or it was found that he had committed a misconduct he could be removed from service by following procedure laid – Power could also be exercised for such dismissal or removal by following pre- conditions as laid down under Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution – Even for imposing a punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, High Court should hold disciplinary proceedings and recommend such punishments – Such power could be exercised by High Court to dispense with an inquiry for a reason to be recorded in writing and such dispensation of an enquiry for valid reasons when recommended to Governor, it was within competence of Governor to issue such orders in terms of recommendation of High Court in exercise of power under Article 311(2) (b) of Constitution – No merit in appeal – Appeal dismissed.