Case: G.S. Nagmoti Vs. State of Mysore

Governor may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 3 on any Government servant.(2) Without prejudice to the provision of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sib-rule (3) :(a) the High Court of Mysore may impose on Government servants belonging to Mysore judicial Sevice holding posts inferior to the post of a District judge, any of the penalties specified in clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Rule 3;(b) .. .. ..(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 3 shall be imposed by any authority lower than the Appointing Authority."Rule 11."Procedure for imposing major penalties. - (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of any law applicable to the Government servant, no order imposing on the Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 shall be passed except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the matter hereinafter provided.(2) The Disciplinary Authority or any authority specially empowered by it in this behalf (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "specially empowered authority") shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority or any authority specially empowered by it in this behalf, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person.(3) The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority or specially empowered authority such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto.(4) .. .. ..(5) .. .. ..(6) .. .. ..(7) At the conclusion of the inquiry the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, record its findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefor. If in the opinion of such authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record findings on such charges provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has admitted the facts constituting them or has had no opportunity of defending himself against them.(8) .. .. ..(9) .. .. ..(10) (i) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 should be imposed, it shall -(a) furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and, where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority; and(b) give him a notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as lie may wish to make against the proposed action.(ii) (a) In very case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry, together with a copy of the notice given under clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice, if any, shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice.(b) On receipt of the advice of the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the Government servant as aforesaid, and the advice given by the Commission and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the Government servant and pass appropriate orders on the case.(iii) In any case in which it is not necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the Government servant in response to the notice under clause (i) and determine what. penalty, if any, should be imposed on the Government servant and pass appropriate orders on the case."4. In The State of West Bengal v. Nrinpendra Nath Baschi it was held by this Court that the word control as used in Article 235 includes disciplinary control or jurisdiction over District judges. By that Article the High Court is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. Control, therefore, is not merely the power to arrange the day to clay wording of the court but contemplates disciplinary jurisdiction over the presiding judge. The question that fell for consideration in that case was whether the enquiry ordered by the Government and conducted by an Executive Officer of the Government against a District and Sessions judge contravened the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution which vested in the High Court the control over the District Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. In our opinion the principle of this decision applies to the present case. It was, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that by its letter, dated October 23, 1963 the High Court had itself requested the Government to appoint Mr. Justice K. S. Hegde as Specially Empowered Authority to hold departmental enquiry into the conduct of the appellant. It was said that the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution have been substantially complied with. A copy of the letter of the High Court is Enclosure 1 to the affidavit filed by the respondent in this Court. It is not possible for us to examine the validity of this argument because the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine by the High Court and we have not the advantage of the Judgment of the High Court on the disputed facts of this case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. In The State of West Bengal v. Nrinpendra Nath Baschi it was held by this Court that the word control as used in Article 235 includes disciplinary control or jurisdiction over District judges. By that Article the High Court is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. Control, therefore, is not merely the power to arrange the day to clay wording of the court but contemplates disciplinary jurisdiction over the presiding judge. The question that fell for consideration in that case was whether the enquiry ordered by the Government and conducted by an Executive Officer of the Government against a District and Sessions judge contravened the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution which vested in the High Court the control over the District Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. In our opinion the principle of this decision applies to the presentcopy of the letter of the High Court is Enclosure 1 to the affidavit filed by the respondent in this Court. It is not possible for us to examine the validity of this argument because the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed in limine by the High Court and we have not the advantage of the Judgment of the High Court on the disputed facts of this case.