RAJENDRA SINGH VERMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS v. LT. GOVERNOR OF NCT OF DELHI & Anr.

3.3 .Article 235 provides that the control over the subordinate courts is vested in the High Court o·f a State. F The "control" vested in the High Court is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation and is a mechanism to ensure and subserve a basic feature of the Constitution, i.e., independence of judiciary. Among others things, it includes premature or G compulsory retirement of Judges of the District Courts and of Subordinate Courts. [para 57] [561-C-F] • Shamsher vs. State of Punjab_ 1975 (1) SCR 814 = (1974) 2 sec 831 - followed. H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 12 S.C.R. A

3.4 The scheme envisaged by the Constitution does not permit the State to encroach upon the area reserved by Articles 233, 234 and first part of Article 235 either by legislation or rules or executive instructions. [Para 58) [562-C] B

3.5 While the High Court retains the power of disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary including power to initiate disciplinary proceedings, suspend them during enquiries and impose punishment on them, but when it comes to the question of dismissal, C removal or reduction in rank or termination of services of judicial officers on any count whatsoever, the High Court becomes the recommending authority and cannot itself pass the orders. The formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be passed by the State Governor D on the recommendations of the High Court. In disciplinary proceedings if an action is taken by the High Court against the judicial officer the recommendations made by the High C_ourt bind the Governor and he is left with no discretion except to act according to the E recommendations. The Governor, under the scheme of Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution cannot refuse to act in terms of the recommendations made by the High Court on the ground that he is not aided and advised by the Council of Ministers and this is the true import o·f total control of the High Court over the Subordinate Judiciary. The recommendation of the High Court is binding on the State Government/Governor and in the matter of compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer the Governor cannot act on the aid and advice of Council G of Ministers but has to act only on the recommendation [562-E-H; 563-A of the High Court.[para 59, 66 and 81) B; 565-D; 579-B] F Shamshervs. State of Punjab 1975 (1) SCR 814 = (1974) H 2 SCC 831; Ba/dev Raj Gu/iani Vs. The Punjab and Haryana RAJENDRA SINGH VERMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS v. 507 LT. GOVERNOR OF NCT OF DELHI High Court & Others 1977 ( 1 ) SCR 425 = (1976) 4· SCC A 201; M. M. Gupta and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others 1983 ( 1) SCR 593 = (1982) 3 sec 412- relied State of Haryana Vs. lnder Prakash Anand H.C.S. & 8 Others, 1976 Suppl. SCR 603 = (1976) 2 SCC 977; Registrar, High Court of Madras Vs. R. Rajaiah, 1988 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 332 = (1988) 3 SCC 211; Registrar (Admn.), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Vs. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (Dead) by LRs. & Another, 1999 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 473 = (1999) 7 SCC 725 State of U.P. Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi C (1978) 2 SCC 102 ; And Tej Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 1986 ( 3 ) SCR 428 = (1986) 3 SCC 604 - referred to.

3.7 Thus, the order of the Lt. Governor compulsorily D retiring the appellants without seeking aid and advice of his Council of Ministers is neither ultra vires nor illegal .and is rightly sustained by the High Cgurt. [Para 81] [579- C-~ . - E

4.1 So far as the plea that the appellants were made to retire compulsorily without affording them an opportunity to make representation against the ACR for the year 2000 is concerned, suffice it to say that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does F not have adverse consequence and, therefore, the principles of natural justice are not attracted. However, when the order of compulsory retirement is passed, the authority concerned has to take into consideration the whole service record of the officer concerned which would include non-communicated adverse remarks also. G What is relevant to notice is that this Court has held that an un-communicated adverse A.C.R. on record can be taken into consideration and an order of compulsory retirement cannot be set aside only for the reason that such un-communicated adverse entry was taken into H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A consideration. Therefore, the fact that the last adverse A.C.R. entry, " •e• grade doubtful" for the year 2000, was communicated but none of the appellants had an opportunity to represent before the same was taken into consideration for passing order of compulsory s retirement, cannot at all vitiate the order of compulsory retirement. The authorities concerned were justified in relying upon the adverse entry made against the appellants in t-he year 2000, alongwith other materials, indicating that their integrity was doubtful. [para 91-92] c [584-F-H; 585-A-B] State of U. P. vs. Sh yam Lal Sharma AIR 1971 SC 2151; State of U.P. and Another Vs. Bihari Lal 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 108 = (1994) Supp (3) SCC 593; Union of India vs. V.P. Seth and another 1994 sec (L&S) 1052; Baikuntha D Nath Das vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada 1992 (1) SCR 836 = (1992) 2 sec 299; Post!: and Telegraphs Board vs. C.S.N. Murthy 1992 (2) seR 338 =(1992) 2 sec 317; _. Union of India Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha ,and Another 1971 (1) SCR 791 =1970 (2) SCC 458; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. E State of Punjab, 1987 (2) SCR 583 = (1987) 2 SCC 188 ; and Union of India Vs. M.E. Reddy, 1980 (1) SCR 736 = (1980) 2 sec 15 - relied on.