By this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondent No.1, that is, Registrar General to initiate appropriate departmental inquiry against the concerned officer who has given certified copy on19.9.2008 to respondent No.1 on application filed by the petitioner dated 1.9.2008.
During the course of hearing of the matter, the petitioner who appears in person, has ventilated various grievances in respect of the alleged irregularities by the Department in respect of supply of certified copies as well as non-mentioning various details on the website etc. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgement dated 19.1.2001 rendered in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.2394 of 2000, has held that the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any officer or other staff member of the High Court, constitutionally lies within the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice under Article 229. The Constitution treats `High Court' and `Chief Justice' as two separate entities inasmuch as "Control over subordinate Courts" vests in the High Court under Article 235, but the High Court administration vests in the Chief Justice under Article 229. It has been further held that under Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice may exercise the power himself or exercise it through such other Judge or officer (such as the Registrar) of the Court, as he may direct. Any direction to hold an inquiry against an officer or other member of the High Court staff would therefore essentially amount to exercise of powers under Article 229 and this can be done only by the Chief Justice or his Nominee. The power of the Chief Justice or his Nominee to take disciplinary action against officers and servants of the High Court cannot be curtailed by any interference from any quarter, not even from his brother Judges. Nor can there be a regular monitoring of any departmental action against an employee by the Court, because, that would amount to usurping the constitutional powers of the Chief Justice under Article 229, resulting in judicial arm-twisting of the Chief Justice and would constitute a serious inroad in the exclusive administrative powers of the Chief Justice. The initiation, nature, progress and outcome of disciplinary action against any officer or other employee of the High Court are the sole preserve of the Chief Justice.
Considering the nature of the grievances voiced in the present petition by the party in-person and the submissions made by her before this Court, this Court is of the view that this is a matter, which requires to be placed before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice since various allegations have been made as regards administrative lapses and inaction on the part of the High Court staff.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top