K.F. ANJUM ALI Vs. HIGH COURT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a reference being made by the learned Single Judge, under Rule 9, Chapter 1 of High Court Rules and Orders in M.P., this petition has come up before us for deciding the question whether there is no impediment in impleading the Chief Justice of High Court of M.P. as a Respondent who acts as an Appellate Authority under Rule 20 (c) of the High Court of M.P., Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) THE Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1975 in the establishment of High Court of M.P. who after rendering service of about seven years was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1992 vide order dated 19.12.92. The Petitioner averred that she contested the election of the Office -bearer for the post of Secretary and was elected as Secretary of the M.P. Uchha Nyayalaya Karamchari Sangh. Since then the Petitioner was actively participating in ventilating the grievances of her colleague employees before the officers of the Registry of the High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner by issuing charge -sheet dated 23rd November, 1995 enclosing allegations of statements Annexure P -5. In the enquiry the charges leveled against the Petitioner were found proved, therefore, vide order dated 20.2.97 Annexure P -11, the Petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk under Rule 10 (vi) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The Petitioner aggrieved of this order of punishment preferred an appeal Annexure P -12 under Clause (c) of Rule 20 of the Rules to the Appellate Authority, I.e., the Chief Justice. Vide Annexure P -13, dated 19th March, 1997, the Petitioner was communicated that her appeal has been dismissed by the Chief Justice on 27.2.1997. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which was also dismissed by the Chief Justice on 28.6.1997 communication of which was sent by memo dated 3rd September, 1997 Annexure P -14. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the order of reversion and the order of the Appellate Authority by the instant petition and claimed the relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 20.2.97, Annexure P -11, passed by the Registrar General, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur and orders dated 18.3.97 Annexure P -13 and dated 3.9,97 Annexure P -14, passed by the Appellate Authority, the Respondent No. 2. When the petition came up for hearing on admission, the Petitioner contended that the Respondent No. 2 has been impleaded as an Appellate Authority who has exercised the powers under Rule 20 (c) of the Rules, hence, there is no impediment in impleading him as a party. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the contention raised is of importance, hence, referred the question for deciding the same by the Bench constituted of two Judges.

(3.) SHRI Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the object of Article 229 of the Constitution is to secure the indepdence of the High Court, which is essential for the working of the democratic form of Government in this Country, by giving the High Court absolute control over its staff, subject only to the limitations imposed by the Article itself, and free from interference by the Government. Therefore, for the efficiency of administration, it is competent for the Chief Justice to frame Rules in exercise of power conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 for regulating the recruitment, conditions of service, classification, control, appeal and conduct with respect to the officers and employees of the High Court so that no executive officer can interfere with the exercise of power by the Chief Justice or his nominee, except to a very limited extent indicated in the proviso of Article 229 (1) and 229 (2). Counsel cited M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland (AIR 1971 SC 1850), Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. L.V.A. Dikshltulu and Ors. (AIR 1979 SC 193), in the Rules so framed by the Chief Justice when an employee is punished by the Disciplinary Authority an appeal lies to the Chief Justice under Clause (c) of Rule 20, who decides the appeal as an Appellate Authority. The primary order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Registrar General, High Court, who is the custodian of all the records. If the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Primary Authority is challenged the Appellate Authority has not to justify the action before the writ Court, as there is no list between the Appellate Authority and the delinquent employee. Besides, even if the writ is issued the Chief Justice is not individually affected by the order of the writ Court. In a writ of certiorari the Appellate Authority has to simply transmit the record, if called, which is to be transmitted by the Registrar General of the High Court who is the custodian of all records. Therefore, in the absence of the impleadment of the Chief Justice, the Appellate Authority, the writ petition would not be incompetent. Counsel cited B. Prabhakar Rao and others, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. etc. (AIR 1986 SC 210) and also placed reliance on the observations contained in para 8 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Udit Narayan Singh's case (supra).