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

. The appellant was working as the Principal Subordinate judge in Bangalore in the year 1963. On October 8, 1963 one Anaappa Setty, P. W. 9, submitted a petition to the Director, Anti-corruption, Bangalore making certain allegations against the appellant regarding the disposal of a Godrej Steel almirah which had been attached in an execution case pending before the appellant. The petition was forwarded to the Mysore High Court by the Director of Anti-corruption on October 13, 1963. Under the direction of the Chief justice a preliminary enquiry was held by Mr. justice Barayana Pai. On receipt of his report, the High Court addressed a letter to the Government under S. O. No. NCC. 3163/63, dated October 23, 1963 requesting that the Governor may be moved to appoint Mr. justice K. S. Hegde as Specially Empowered Authority to hold the departmental enquiry into the conduct of the appellant under Rule 11 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Accordingly the Government of Mysore appointed Mr. justice K. S. Hegde as the Specially Empowered Authority to conduct the departmental enquiry. Thereafter Hegde J., framed charges against the appellant, received his explanation and concluded the enquiry. The appellant was found guilty of the charge and in his report to the Governor Hegde J., recommended that the appellant may be reduced to the rank of a Civil judge, junior Division (Munsiff) and that he shall not be considered for promotion as a Civil Judge, Senior Division (or as Subordinate judge) for a period of two years. On receipt of the report the Governor of Mysore considered the case of the appellant and held that the charge was fully established. By his order dated May 17, 1964 the Governor of Mysore issued a notification under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution to the appellant asking him to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. The appellant submitted his representation to the Governor of Mysore. Thereafter the Governor passed an order, dated October 31, 1964 directing compulsory retirement of the appellant. The appellant submitted an application dated September 24, 1964 to the Chief Minister of Mysore and another application dated December 14, 1961 to the Governor of Mysore to review the order. The review application was rejected by order dated April 1, 1965 passed by the Governor. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition No. 1313 of 1965 before the Mysore High Court challenging the order of the Governor and praying that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 16, 1965 at the stage of admission without notice to the respondent.

Reasoning:
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.