ORDER
Tipnis, J
1. The petitioner who was working as a Judge of the Court of Small Cases at Pune has challenged in this petition, the order dated 21st April 1992 passed by the Governor of Maharashtra dismissing him from service.
2. We have heard Shri Anturkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petitioner at great length. We have also heard Shri Rane, learned counsel appearing for the High Court. – respondent no. 1 herein, we have perused the petition as also affidavit in-reply filed by the Additional Registrar, of this Court on behalf of the High Court.
3. There were complaints of corruption and misbehavior on the part of some of the Judges of the subordinate judiciary at Pune and specially again some Judges manning the Court of small Causes at Pune. Representation were made to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court and upon consideration of the entire matter, the High Court thought it fit to proceed against some of the Judges by holding departmental inquiry. Present petitioner was one of those Judges against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the High Court and ultimately upon consideration of the entire material the High Court recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service and consequently the impugned order was passed by the Governor of Maharashtra.
4. We are not required to go into the details of the allegations and the charges held proved which in our opinion are also quite serious especially against a Judicial Officer, inasmuch as Shri Anturkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only four law points in support of the position.
5. The first submission of Shri Anturkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire procedure followed by the High Court is illegal inasmuch as under the Service Rules, it is the governor who is the competent authority and as such the High Court could not have appointed the Inquiry Officer or even initiated the inquiry proceedings without concurrence or at any rate reference to the Governor. In this behalf Shri Anturkar specifically referred to rules 2, 5, and 7 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1979. Shri Anturkar in this behalf relied upon the division bench decision of this Court and especially paragraph 19A thereof. Shri Anturkar in this behalf also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court and especially paragraph 38 of the aforesaid decision. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court . Shri Anturkar therefore submits that inasmuch as the entire proceedings were initiated by the High Court alone to the exclusion of the Governor, which procedure is contrary to law and, therefore, vitiates the proceedings and the consequential finding and final order of dismissal. We find it impossible to accept this submission of the earned counsel. Undoubtedly the decision of the division bench of this Court supports the submission of the learned counsel. However, we do not find it necessary to reproduce the ratio of the decision inasmuch as in our considered opinion in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and , the decision is no more a good law. The decisions of the Apex Court referred to above very clearly lay down that so far as the subordinate judiciary is concerned, by virtue of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution, the entire control, including disciplinary jurisdiction over the subordinate judiciary exclusively vests in the High Court.
6. Shri Anturkar next submitted that after the inquiry office submitted his report to the High Court, the High Court by its letter dated 16th October 1991 addressed to the petitioner informed him that the report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and other Hon’ble Judges constituting the Disciplinary Committee and Their Lordships were pleased to take following decision thereon :
“After considering the record of the inquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was decided to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer with respect of charges no. 2 to 6. However, for the reasons separately recorded in Annexure hereto, it was decided not to accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge no. 1. IT was also decided not to accept the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the quantum of penalty, inasmuch the charges established are of a very serious nature and the maximum penalty of dismissal from service is warranted.
Let notice, therefore, issue to the delinquent officer calling upon him to show cause why charge no. 1 should not be held proved against him and why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him in view of the charges established. The show cause notice will be accompanied by the report of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons separately recorded by the Committee as regards charge no. 1″.
Shri Anturkar submits that admittedly along with the notice report of the Enquiry Officer was also supplied tot her delinquent. The contention of Shri Anturkar is that inasmuch as the High Court has already decided to accept the report of the Enquiry Offer with respect of the Charges Nos. 2 too 6 before supplying the petitioner copy of the report, the petitioner was deprived of his opportunity to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded by the Enquiry Office in the report submitted by him to that effect. According to Shri Anturkar this is against the principles of unnatural justice. In this behalf Shri anturkar relied upon the decisions and . It is difficult to accept the submission of Shri Anturkar for more than one reason. Firstly on a proper reading of the notice dated 16th October 1991 it is clear to us that in fact the disciplinary committee made it known to the delinquent that he High Court has decided to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer with respect to charges 2 to 6. It further gave notice to the delinquent that the High Court also does not accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge no. 1 and further that he seriousness of he charges established against the delinquent warrants maximum penalty of dismissal from service. The letter further shows that he notice was directed to be issued to the delinquent to show cause why the charge no. 1 should also not be held to be proved against him and why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him in view of the charges established. Thus in our opinion the notice clearly contemplated that the delinquent should say whatever he wants to say regarding not only the charge no. 1 but also why he should not be dismissed from service on the hypothesis that the charges are established. It is further every relevant to notice that as a matter of fact the delinquent who happens to be a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, at Pune has given detailed reply to this notice and in the said reply not only the delinquent has made his submission regarding charge no. 1 but also on all other findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. thus we find that factually the principles of natural justice were not at all breached and in fact not only opportunity was given to the delinquent to say whatever he had to say about the enquiry report but in fact the delinquent has availed of the said opportunity.
7. Shri Anturkar then submitted that there is no material on record to show that there was any further consideration of his reply qua charge nos. 3 to 6. In this behalf it requires to be stated that we can presume proper consideration of the reply by the High Court. That apart no such pleading or submission is found in the petition, and as such there was occasion for the High Court to meet this allegation on facts. In this behalf it requires to be noticed that in paragraph 30 of the petition there is no whisper regarding the High Court to meet this allegation on facts. In this behalf it requires to be noticed that in paragraph 30 of the petition there is no whisper regarding the High Court not considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are unable to accept the submission of Shri Anturkar that for the reasons there was any breach of principle of natural justice.
8. In this behalf it also requires to be noticed that he order of dismissal passed by the Governor also makes a reference to the consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner, by the disciplinary committee before resolving that the charge at serial no. 1 had also been proved against the petitioner and having regard to the serious nature and gravity of charges nos. 1 & 3 proved against the petitioner recommended to the Government to inflict the punishment of dismissal from serious on the petitioner. In view of this we do not find any force in the submission of Shri Anturkar.
9. Lastly Shri Anturkar submitted that the High Court by its order granted general immunity to the persons or Advocates who would complain against the four Judges. Shri Anturkar submits that apart from the fact that only 4 Judges were chosen for this special treatment, when the petition applied for grant of identical immunity same was declined. This is the submission of the learned counsel amounts to breach of the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Despite our serious consideration we find it difficult to understand how Art. 14 of the Constitution is breached at all on this allegation. Firstly the so-called immunity granted is only for the limited purpose i.e. that the High Court assured persons who are ready to make statements against the Judges; that no action of what so ever nature will be initiated against them by the High Court and such statements will not be made available to third party on its own motion. It is clear to our mind that in the facts and circumstances of the case and demand by the public in general and the Advocates in particular for action against the corrupt Judges, and immunity it was expedient to afford such protection. Secondly there is no question of any discrimination inasmuch as there was no question of granting identical immunity to the petitioner. We fail to appreciate what allegation the petitioner could have made and against whom in the enquiry to be conducted against him. It is difficult to comprehend any such occasion to grant such immunity to the petitioner.
10. Shri Anturkar then submitted that one Shri Yellurkar who was also a Judge of the Court of Small Causes, at Pune was allowed to retire and further that though there was clamour against the Judges of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, no such immunity was granted to the general public so far as those Judges are concerned. It is impossible to entertain this submission inasmuch as the facts of each case will have to be appreciated separately and secondly no case is pointed out where in fact an inquiry has been held against any Judge. It also requires to be noticed that Shri Rane, learned counsel appearing for the High Court pointed out that decision to proceed against the Judges was taken sometime in the month of December, 1990 but no disciplinary proceedings were commenced against Judge Yellurkar only because the Judge Yellurkar was to reach the date of superannuation within a month’s time i.e. 31.1.1991. On the basis of the material on record, therefore, we are unable to see any discriminatory treatment given to the petitioner.
11. None of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are acceptable. In the result we reject the petition.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Application is rejected. Certified copy expedited.