- (1.) The appellants were the employees in the ministerial establishment of the Courts at Ferozepore and Zira having entered into service varying from the year 1952 to 1965. They are members of the- Punjab Civil Courts Clerks Association. On 24th July, 1980, there was an incident in the Court of Shri N. S. Mundra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira. On that day, one Jagdish Lal, a Senior Ahlmad of the Court was slapped. He is one of the appellants in this appeal. On the day he was slapped, he presented a representation to the District and Sessions Judge Shri Nehra. An enquiry was directed to be held by the Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore, into the incident. In this enquiry. it was found that Shri Mundra, Judicial Magistrate, Zira, slapped Jagdish Lal. This incident caused resentment in the Association and the Association,. therefore, felt that something should be done to demonstrate this resentment. Accordingly, it was decided by the Association that a request should be made to the District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, to transfer Jagdish Lal from the Court at Zira to any other Court so that calm could be restored. The appellants among others met the District and Sessions Judge for this purpose on 28-7-1980. It is alleged that the Sessions Judge did not accede to the request of the representatives of the Association to plead their case before him. This aggravated the situation. Though the association and their representatives including the appellants were keen to resolve the matter, the District and Sessions Judge adopted a hardened attitude. The matter came to the notice of the High Court. An enquiry by Justice S. P. Goyal of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was directed to be held and it was scheduled for 9th August, 1980. He was to reach the Canal Rest House at 4.00 P.M., but he could reach only at 7.30 P.M. At that time, the District and Sessions Judge, along with other Judicial Officers were present to receive him. A demonstration was organised by the subordinate Court officials. There was continued slogan shouting from 4.00 P.M. till 7.30 P.M. before Justice Goyal's arrival. The appellants are said to have taken a prominent part in raising objectionable slogans. The slogans are : "N.S. Mundra Murdabad; N. S. Mundra Hai Hai; Dakia Mahajan Superintendent Murdabad; B. S. Nehra Murdabad; B. S. Nehra naun Chalta Karo; Katal Nehra Murdabad; B. S. Nehra Murdabad." The appellants were charge-sheeted for this conduct of theirs.
(2.) Justice Goyal alighted from his car and went inside the visiting room of the rest house. He called the representatives of the Association. Some of them met him. They came out after the meeting. There were other demonstrators waiting for the result of the talks. After they came back, those who raised slogans disbursed. On 11 th August, 1980, the District Judge sent a letter to Shri G. S. Khurana, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, to hold preliminary enquiry into the demonstration by the Court officials in front of the Canal Rest House and the slogans raised there. Mr. Khurana recorded the statements of some officers on the same day and submitted his report on that very day itself. According to his report, the appellants had taken a prominent part in raising objectionable slogans in question. On the basis of this report, the District Judge, placed the appellants under suspension by his order dated 14-8-1980. On 12th August, 1980, the District Judge had intimated the High Court about the finding in the preliminary report and had sought guidance of the High Court. The appellants were supplied with the articles of the charges and statements of imputation, etc. They gave their replies. While admitting that they had taken part in the demonstration on the day in question they denied that they had taken a prominent part in the demonstration as leaders in raising objectionable and defamatory slogans against their superior officers. A formal enquiry was ordered against these appellants. After a detailed enquiry it was found that the appellants had contravened inter alia R. 7(l), Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and had thus acted prejudicially to the public order, decency and morality and thereby contravened R. 7(l), Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The District Judge, Ferozepore in his capacity as the punishing authority then served a show cause notice on all the appellants as to why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on them. The appellants submitted their explanation. After considering the replies, the District Judge, by his order dated 17-11-1980, imposed on them punishment of dismissal from service.
(3.) The appellants preferred a service appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court considered the various contentions raised by the appellants in detail and dismissed the appeal as having no merit. One of the employees who had also filed appeal before the High Court withdrew his appeal and is now reported to be practising law. This appeal has, therefore, come up before us by special leave under Art. 136, against the order of the single Judge in the above mentioned service appeal. We have given only the bare facts in this judgment for the reason that this Court issued notice on the SLP for consideration of a preliminary point only which will be evident by the orders passed on 3-12-1981, 4-1-1982 and 2-4-1982. "Order of the Court on 3-12-1981 : Issue show cause notice on SLP returnable on 4-1-1982, on the question as to whether the High Court in disposing of the appeal of the petitioners was acting in administrative capacity or as a Tribunal or as High Court. There will be interim injunction restraining the respondents from evicting petitioner No. 2 from Government accommodation held by him on the condition that the said petitioner continues to pay rent or compensation at hither to charged, pending notice." "Order of the Court on 4-1-1982 : Special leave petition to be heard on the question whether the High Court in disposing of the appeal of the petitioners was acting in an administrative capacity under Art. 235 or as a Tribunal or as the High Court. The special leave petition to be heard on 9-2-1982 on this question. Stay to continue till then." "Order of the Court on 2-4-1982: Special leave granted. Printing of records and filing of statement of case dispensed with. Security dispensed with. Appeal will be heard on present papers on the preliminary issue as to whether the High Court in disposal of appeal was acting in administrative capacity under Art. 235 or as Tribunal or as a High Court and the circumstances in which the appeal was maintained, if so. Hearing of appeal will be fixed on second Tuesday in July 1982 peremptorily subject to overnight's part heard." From the above orders it is clear that the question that is to be decided in this appeal is whether an appeal under Art. 136 ties to this Court from the order under challenge. That being so, it is necessary to consider the nature of the appeal before the High Court and the rules governing that appeal, before discussing the questions of law raised by the appellant's counsel with reference to various authorities of this, Court, to contend that Art. 136 was attracted.;