# STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAMESH CHANDRA MASHRUWALA

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 710
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-01-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1975
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, P. s. KAILASAM
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-v-ramesh-chandra-mashruwala-7097
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Disciplinary jurisdictit.m of the' High Court-The Registrar of the Small Causes
c;ourt, A~m.ed~bad ~PP?•n,te~ by the Governor, if is "in judicial service" and sub1ect to. d!fc~plmary 1ur1sd1c'.wn of the High C_ou;t-;-The _qu~stion_ of "appointing
authority
l~ not relevant zn regard to the disciplinary 1urisdictwn of the High
Court-Articles 235, and 236 of the Constitution of India, Sections 9(1) (aa),
13, 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882-Scope of.
Reasonable opportunity-Failure to give copies of documents demanded is
contrary to the provisions of Art. 311.
Pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted by the High Court and on
its recommendation, the Gujarat Governor dismissed the respondent from the
service of Registrar, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The respondent challenged by way of a writ the said order contending : ( l) The High Court was iaot
bis appointing authority and he being the member of general State service, the
High Court has no authority to initiate proceedings, the appointment of the
enquiry officer, framing of charges of misconduct and taking disciplinary p:roceedings etc. (2) The High Court has no authority to direct further enquiry to
be made in respect of recording the statement of one Mr. Bhatt, an advocate
or to consider the reports made by the enquiry officer and come to the conclusion about his guilt or to issue show cause notice of punishment. (3) The direction of the High Court that the statement of Mr. Bhatt iS recorded was passed
without hearing the petitioner and this violated tho rules of natural justice. (4)
The failure to give copies of certain documents demanded by the petitioner
deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, th@
enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution; and ( 5)
The impugned order was passed by the Government without consulting the Public Service Commission and the same was illegal and bad in law.
The High Court held : ( l) The post of the Registrar of Small Causes Court
does not fall within the expression "judicial service" within the meaning of Art.
235 and (2) The High Court has no disciplinary iurisdiction over the Registrar
in view of the fact that th.e H;igh Court is not the "appointing authority".
Accepting the State's appeal by certificate and remitting the case, the Court,
HELD : ( l) The Registrar of the Court of .s~all Causes is a ~rs~n ~ohli!1g
a civil judicial post inferior to the post of D1str1ct Judge and he 1s m 1ud1.c1al
service. Sections 9(1), 13 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency· Small Causes Court
Act, 1882 indicate in no uncertain manner that the ~egistrar of Small Causes
Court exercises judicial powers, Inasmu7h .a~ the Reg1s.tra: S?l.all Cans~ Court
exercises his judicial function, he is a 1ud1c1al officer m 1ud1cial
service and
comes within the scope and intent of Art. 235 and 236.
[711 H, 712 G=H]
(2) The High Court was in error in. C?n~ideri~g ~he. q!1estion of "appointing
authority" as relevant in regard to the d1sc1plmary 1u~1s~1c~10n of the H~gh Court
and also in holding that it had i;io . p~wer t<;> ~rd~r _d1sc1plmary proceedmgs; The
High Court abdicated its own d1sc1plmary 1uns~17tion. The High Court is the
competent authority to hold departmental enqmnes. [711 D-E, 713 A-CJ
High Court of Punjab & Haryana etc. v. State of Haryqna and Ors. [1975]
(3) SCR 365 and Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Pun1ab [1975] (1) SCR
814, referred to.
,_,
r
GUJARAT V. RAMESH CHANDRA (Ray, C.J.)
711
(3) In the instant case the enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art.
311 of the Constitution due to the failure to give copies of certain documents
demanded by the Registrar, thus deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself.
[713 GJ

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
710
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA MASHRUWALA
January 21, 1977
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JJ.]
Disciplinary jurisdictit.m of the' High Court-The Registrar of the Small Causes
c;ourt, A~m.ed~bad ~PP?•n,te~ by the Governor, if is "in judicial service" and sub1ect to. d!fc~plmary 1ur1sd1c'.wn of the High C_ou;t-;-The _qu~stion_ of "appointing
authority
l~ not relevant zn regard to the disciplinary 1urisdictwn of the High
Court-Articles 235, and 236 of the Constitution of India, Sections 9(1) (aa),
13, 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882-Scope of.
Reasonable opportunity-Failure to give copies of documents demanded is
contrary to the provisions of Art. 311.
Pursuant to the departmental enquiry conducted by the High Court and on
its recommendation, the Gujarat Governor dismissed the respondent from the
service of Registrar, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The respondent challenged by way of a writ the said order contending : ( l) The High Court was iaot
bis appointing authority and he being the member of general State service, the
High Court has no authority to initiate proceedings, the appointment of the
enquiry officer, framing of charges of misconduct and taking disciplinary p:roceedings etc. (2) The High Court has no authority to direct further enquiry to
be made in respect of recording the statement of one Mr. Bhatt, an advocate
or to consider the reports made by the enquiry officer and come to the conclusion about his guilt or to issue show cause notice of punishment. (3) The direction of the High Court that the statement of Mr. Bhatt iS recorded was passed
without hearing the petitioner and this violated tho rules of natural justice. (4)
The failure to give copies of certain documents demanded by the petitioner
deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, th@
enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution; and ( 5)
The impugned order was passed by the Government without consulting the Public Service Commission and the same was illegal and bad in law.
The High Court held : ( l) The post of the Registrar of Small Causes Court
does not fall within the expression "judicial service" within the meaning of Art.
235 and (2) The High Court has no disciplinary iurisdiction over the Registrar
in view of the fact that th.e H;igh Court is not the "appointing authority".
Accepting the State's appeal by certificate and remitting the case, the Court,
HELD : ( l) The Registrar of the Court of .s~all Causes is a ~rs~n ~ohli!1g
a civil judicial post inferior to the post of D1str1ct Judge and he 1s m 1ud1.c1al
service. Sections 9(1), 13 14, 33 to 36 of the Presidency· Small Causes Court
Act, 1882 indicate in no uncertain manner that the ~egistrar of Small Causes
Court exercises judicial powers, Inasmu7h .a~ the Reg1s.tra: S?l.all Cans~ Court
exercises his judicial function, he is a 1ud1c1al officer m 1ud1cial
service and
comes within the scope and intent of Art. 235 and 236.
[711 H, 712 G=H]
(2) The High Court was in error in. C?n~ideri~g ~he. q!1estion of "appointing
authority" as relevant in regard to the d1sc1plmary 1u~1s~1c~10n of the H~gh Court
and also in holding that it had i;io . p~wer t<;> ~rd~r _d1sc1plmary proceedmgs; The
High Court abdicated its own d1sc1plmary 1uns~17tion. The High Court is the
competent authority to hold departmental enqmnes. [711 D-E, 713 A-CJ
High Court of Punjab & Haryana etc. v. State of Haryqna and Ors. [1975]
(3) SCR 365 and Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Pun1ab [1975] (1) SCR
814, referred to.
,_,
r
GUJARAT V. RAMESH CHANDRA (Ray, C.J.)
711
(3) In the instant case the enquiry was contrary to the provisions of Art.
311 of the Constitution due to the failure to give copies of certain documents
demanded by the Registrar, thus deprived him of a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself.
[713 GJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 19-4-74 of the Gujarat
High Court in Special Civil Appln. No. 306 of 1973.
S. T. Desai and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.
This appeal is by certificate against the judgment and
order dated 19 April 1974 of the High Court of Gujarat in Special
Civil Application No. 306 of 1973.
The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the petitioner before the High Court, who was the Registrar of the Small
Causes .Court, Ahmedabad· was subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction
A
B
c
of the High Court.
D
The Registrar was appointed on 12 September, 1969 by an order
~
of the Governor of Gujarat.
The High Court said that ·in view of the fact that the High Court
is not the appointing authority the High Court has no disciplinary
jurisdiction over the Registrar.
E
The High Court was in error in considering that the question of
appointing authority is relevant in regard to the disciplinary jurisdiction
of the High Court.
Under Article 235 the control over district Courts and Courts
subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the
grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and
holding any post inferior to the post of district judge shall be vested
in the High Court.
F
The expression 'judicial service' is defined in Article 236 to mean
"a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of
district judge and other civil judicial posts 'inferior to the post of district
G
judge".
These two articles 235 and 236 are relevant for the purpose of
ascertaining the extent of disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Registrar of the Court of Small Causes is a person holding a civil
judicial post inferior to the Post of district judge and is 'in Judicial
service.'
H
Reference to the presidency Sm.all Causes Courts Act 1882 is
necessary to find out the powers, position and duties of the Registrar
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R,
A
of the Small Causes Court.
Section 13 of the Act states : "There
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
shall be appointed an officer to be called the Registrar of the Court who
shall be chief ministerial officer of the Court".
The other provisions in the Act which deal with the Powers of the
Registrar are to be found in Sections 9(1) (aa), 14, 33, 34, 35 and
36, which read as follows :
"9(1) (aa). The High Court may, from time to time,
by
rules having the force of law empower the Registrar to hear
and dispose of undefended suits and interlocutory applications
or matters.
14 - The Provincial Government may invest the Registrar
with the powers of a.Judge under this Act for the trial of suits
in which the amount or value of the subject-matter does not
exceed twenty rupees.
And subject to the orders of the
Chief Judge, any Judge of the Small Cause
Court may,
whenever he thinks fit, trl!nsfer from his own file to the file of
the Registrar any suit which the latter is competent to try.
33 - Any non-judicial or quasi-judicial act which the Code of
Civil Procedure as applied by this Act requires to be done by
a Judge, and any act which may be done by a Commissioner
appointed to examine and adjust accounts under section 394
of that Code as so applied, may be done by the Registrar of
the Small Cause Court or by such other officer of that
Court as that Court may, from time to time, appoint in this
behalf.
34 - The suits cognizable by the Registrar under section 14
shall be heard and determined by him in like manner in all
respects as a Judge of the Court might hear and determine
the same.
35 - The Registrar may receive applications for the execution of decrees ·of any value passed by the Court, and may
commit and discharge judgment debtors, and make any order
in respect thereof which a Judge of the Court might make
under this Act.
36 - Every decree and order made by the Registrar in any
suit or proceeding shall be subject to the same provisions in
regard to new trial as if made by a Judge of the Court."
These provisions of the Act indicate in no uncertain manner that
the Registrar of a Small Causes Court exercises judicial powers, hears
suits, passes decrees and an appeal is preferred from a decree of the
Registrar.
Counsel for the appellant is ri~t in his contentioi;
th~t . tpe
Registrar, Small Causes Court, masmuch as he exercises 1ud1crnl
functions, is a judicial officer in Judicial Service and comes within the
scope and intent of Articles 235 and 236.
,-
i
J
GUJARAT V. RAMESH CHANDRA (Ray, C.J.)
713
The High Court W!lS in error in holding that the High Court had
A
no power to order disciplinary proceedings. It is significant that the
High Court abdicated its own disciplinary jurisdiction.
The independence of the judiciary has been emphasised b ythis Court in un-mistakable terms in the following two decisions :
1. High Court of Punjab & Haryana etc. v. State of Haryana &
Ors., reported in 1975 (3) S.C.R. 365 and
B
2. Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, reported in
1975
( 1) S.C.R.814.
The Gujarat High Court like other High Courts is competent to
enquire into such disciplinary matters.
In the present appeal there were five contentions before the High
Court on behalf of the Registrar.
The first contention fails in
view of our conclusion that the High Court is the competent authority to hold departmental enquiry.
The second contention of the
Registrar was that the High Court had no authority to direct further
inquiry to be made in respect of recording the statement of Bhatt or
to coKSider the reports made by the inquiry officer and come to
a
conclusion about the guilt of the Registrar.
The third
contention
of the Registrar was that the direction of the High Court that the
statement of Bhatt be recorded was passed without hearing the Registrar and was violative of the rule of natural justice.
It will appear that the High Court issued directions and the statement of Bhatt was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Bhatt is a Lawyer.
He was busy in Court.
He could not appear before the Inquiry
officer on the date fixed for taking his evidence.
The High Court
asked the Inquiry Officer to record the evidence of Bhatt.
The
Registrar was given a copy of the statement of Bhatt after recordint;
of Bhatt's evidence.
The Registrar was given an opportunity
to
deal with the evidence of Bhatt.
It is idle to contend that the Registrar ought to have been heard before the High Cout directild that the
s_tatement of Bhatt should be recorded.
The fourth contention of the Registrar was that there was failure
to give copies of documents demanded by him; therefore he did not
'have reasonable copportunity to defend himself.
'{he High Court
did not go into this question in view of the fact that the High Court ·
did not consider this question.
Counsel for the Registrar submitted
that he wanted to address the Court on the materials which were not
available now.
We are of opinion that the mattr should be remitted
to the High Court only on this question viz 'failure to give copies oE
certain documents demanded by the Registrar thus depriving him of
a resonable opportunity to defend himself and therefore, the inquiry
was contrary to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution'.
The fifth contention that the impugned order was passed by the
Government without consulting the Public Service Commission
does not survive in view of our conclusion that the High Court is the
competent authority to make departmental inquiry.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 2 S.C.R.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration
only of the fourth question as indicated above.
Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
S.R.
Appeal allowed and case remitted.
·-
\
'J'