Summary
Three judicial officers challenged the liberty reserved to the Patna High Court to take fresh disciplinary action after their dismissal without inquiry was quashed for failure to record reasons. The Court upheld that liberty: annulment on procedural grounds did not resolve the allegations or prevent a fresh lawful decision. It left the effect of retirement on any subsequent order open.
Issues
- Whether quashing dismissal for absence of recorded reasons precluded a fresh decision to dispense with inquiry.
- Whether the High Court could recommend dispensing with inquiry before a formal order by the Governor.
- Whether the consequences of retirement required determination in these appeals.
Provisions considered
- Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b), Constitution of IndiaRequired written reasons establishing that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable before a dismissal order; permitted a fresh lawful exercise after the earlier order was annulled. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12, 15, 18)
Held
- Written reasons for dispensing with inquiry are mandatory and must precede dismissal; subsequent affidavits cannot supply reasons for the old order. Quashing that order obliterates it but does not decide the allegations or bar fresh action by res judicata. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
- The liberty to act at an appropriate stage did not authorise retrospective repair of the annulled dismissal, require a regular inquiry first, or forbid a fresh decision under Article 311(2). Any such decision must rest on specific reasons showing reasonable impracticability and follow prescribed procedure. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15)
- The High Court’s disciplinary control includes deciding and recommending, on recorded valid reasons, that inquiry be dispensed with. The Governor passes the formal order; the power was not exclusively vested in the Governor to the exclusion of the High Court’s recommendation. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The contention that retirement prevented a subsequent dismissal was not pressed because no final order had been made and it would raise a new cause of action. That issue and the merits of the allegations remained open. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeals dismissed; stay vacated. Respondents must proceed in accordance with law. No opinion was expressed on the allegations or the effect of retirement on a future order. No costs.