- (1.) The appellant is a Judicial Officer, being a member of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service. He was posted as an Additional District Judge at Meerut. A complaint was received from the Commissioner, Meerut Division and the Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority against the appellant by the District Judge, Meerut, which was forwarded to the Allahabad High court. An inquiry was conducted into the said complaint by the Vigilance Department of the High court and the Report of the Special Officer (Vigilance) was considered by the Administrative Committee of the High court. The Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 15/7/1992, after approving the said Report, resolved that the matter be referred forenquiry to the Administrative tribunal constituted under the provisions of the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative tribunal) Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It was also resolved that the appellant be placed under suspension. The appellant submitted a representation against the order of suspension which was rejected by the Administrative Committee. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed a writ petition (WP No. 38406 of 1992 before the High court which was dismissed by the High court by the impugned judgment dated 5/11/1992. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the High court, the appellant has filed this appeal.
(2.) The question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the entrustment of the inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against the appellant to the Administrative tribunal is in consonance with the control vested in the High court over the members of the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution,
(3.) Shri D. V. Sehgal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Allahabad High court, has invited our attention to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7 of Rule 3, sub-rule (2 of Rule 4, sub-rule (1 of Rule 10 and sub-rule (3 of Rule 10-A of the Rules, as amended. In sub-rule (7 of Rule 3 of the Rules which was inserted by notification dated 7/11/1975 it is prescribed that the tribunal to which a case relating to a member of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service, the U. P. State Judicial Service or the U. P. Judicial Officers Service is referred, shall consist of two officers each of whom shall be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High court and no assessor should be appointed to assist such a tribunal. In sub-rule (2 of Rule 4, inserted by Notification dated 3/11/1989, it is laid down that the High court may refer to the tribunal cases relating to an officer belonging to a service referred to in sub-rule (7 of Rule 3 in respect of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. Sub-rule (1 of Rule 10, as amended by Notifications dated 17/4/1977 and 3/11/1989, provides that on receipt of the tribunal's recommendation in a case relating to a Judicial Officer the High court may pass an order awarding a penalty other than one of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement itself or recommend to the governor the imposition of the penalty of dismissal or pass such other order as it may deem fit. Under sub-rule (3 of Rule 10-A inserted by Notification dated 7/11/1975 any action under the said Rule in respect of a judicial officer shall be taken only on the recommendation or with the consent of the High court. It has been pointed out that these provisions were introduced in the Rules on the recommendations of the High court.;