- (1.) THE petitioner, an additional District Judge, has assailed the departmental proceedings purported to have been started against him wherein he is going to be suspended on the grounds inter alia, that the power of control over the District Courts and Courts subordinate to the High Courts vested in the High Court by Article 235 of the constitution of India cannot be exercised until the condition of services are prescribed by law made by the appropriate legislature or in the absence of any law by rules made by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. As no law has been made nor any rules have been framed laying down the condition of service and providing for any right of appeal the High court is not competent to exercise its power of control over District Courts and Courts Subordinate thereto. The petitioner stated that he had come to know on July 29, 1983 over telephone from the then Registrar, Appellate Side, High courts Calcutta, Sri S. N. Koley, about the initiation of the departmental - proceeding against him and he was going to be suspended soon. The petitioner' has further stated that no formal explanation had ever been called for from him in regard to any of the allegations forming the subject matter of the enquiry. It has been submitted that no rule has been framed under Article 235 of the constitution empowering the High Court to hold any enquiry or to start any disciplinary proceeding against any Judicial Officer including the petitioner, who is posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore and is now on leave. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that the Governor, who is the appointing authority, has not delegated to the High Court any such power of starting departmental proceeding and suspending any judicial officer. As such the impugned order of departmental proceeding and suspension against the petitioner is without any jurisdiction and legal authority and is liable to be quashed. It has also been submitted that the High Court has no power to suspend a judicial officer It is only the Governor who can suspend under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, any Judicial Officer in absence of any Rule delegating such power to the High Court. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause to why the impugned proceeding should not be quashed, cancelled or set aside and also for a writ or prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding any further with the proceeding. There is also a prayer for a writ of Certiorari upon the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4' to certify and transmit the relevant records for quashing the same. There is a prayer for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order of departmental enquiry as well as the order of suspension made, if any, pending the hearing of the petition.
(2.) ON August. 10, 1983, this Court after hearing the petitioner's Advocate fixed the application for hearing a week hence at the top of the list. An interim order , of maintaining status-quo as on that date was made in the mean time. The petitioner was directed to serve the copies of the application on the RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 to 4.
(3.) AGAINST the said interim order the respondents filed an appeal being f-M-A-T- No. 325 of 1983 and made an oral prayer for Stay and obtained an order of Stay of operation of [he interim order. The said appeal was heard and allowed.;