Judgment :- Dr.A.S.Anand, C.J.: The termination of services of the appellant serving at the relevant as a Judicial First class Magistrate, by the Governor, on the recommendation of Court was called in question by the appellant through W.P.No.528 of 1990. The Writ was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 16.2.1991, giving rise to the filing of this. 2. The High Court had made a recommendation to the Governor to terminate the services the appellant when during a departmental enquiry ordered by the High Court and conducted by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, under directions of the High Court, it was found the charges against the appellant inter alia of demanding, receiving and accepting bribe certain persons, while discharging his functions as a Judicial Magistrate had established. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was considered by the Court and after following the formalities required by law, was accepted by the High On the acceptance of the report, as already noticed, a recommendation was made Governor to terminate the services of the appellant. 3. Various contentions raised before the single Judge have been reiterated by the appellant before us. 4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the departmental enquiry should have been conducted by the High Court itself or that atleast one Judges of the High Court should have conducted the departmental enquiry and that conduct of the enquiry could not have been entrusted to a district Judge as the disciplinary authority could not delegate its powers to the District Judge. The learned single Judge rejected the argument. It is a recognised principle of administrative jurisprudence statutory functionary exercising administrative powers does not delegate its functions by deputing a responsible and a competent officer to collect materials during a departmental enquiry and submit his report. This is the ordinary mode by which administrative power exercised. The High Court had appointed the Enquiry Officer, who was to collect the and after enquiry, submit a report. The report was considered by the High Court as The recommendation was made by the High Court itself after accepting that report. The Court, therefore, delegated no power to the Principal District Judge, but only delegated certain functions by deputing him to enquire and report Learned counsel has failed to the distinction between delegation of certain administrative job and delegation of power. The Court, therefore, delegated no power to the Principal District Judge, but only delegated certain functions by deputing him to enquire and report Learned counsel has failed to the distinction between delegation of certain administrative job and delegation of power. The appellant had a fair opportunity during the enquiry and even subsequently, when report was considered and the explanation of the appellant was taken into account High Court before recommending termination of the services of the appellant Governor. The first argument, therefore, has no force. 5. It was next argued by the learned counsel that action against the appellant could taken by the Government since at the relevant time, he was only working as a “Judicial Magistrate. The argument is futile. The appellant had retained no lien Secretariat. On his own admission in the writ affidavit, he had been regularized judicial service and at the time when the order, impugned in the writ petition, was made, was a regular Judicial Magistrate, First Class, borne on the cadre of the judiciary argument, therefore, has no merit. 6. The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the opinion High Court, which is not the appointing authority, ought not to have been considered Governor and that the Governor should have decided the case de hors the ‘recommendation of the High Court and that the High Court could not ‘recommend’ the termination services of the appellant. It was also suggested that the disciplinary enquiry should been ordered by the Governor and not the High Court. We cannot agree. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Stare of W.B. v. Nripendra Nath, 1966 S.C. 447: (1966)2 S.C.J. 59: (1966)1 S.C.R. 771 , dealt with the ambit and extent the disciplinary control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary and opined that High Court is the sole custodian of ‘control’ over the judiciary and that ‘control includes something in addition to mere superintendence. It is the ‘control’ over the conduct discipline of the Subordinate Judges and that the ‘control’ which is vested in the High Court “a complete control” subject only to the power of the Governor, in the matter appointment, including dismissal and removal. It is the ‘control’ over the conduct discipline of the Subordinate Judges and that the ‘control’ which is vested in the High Court “a complete control” subject only to the power of the Governor, in the matter appointment, including dismissal and removal. This view was reiterated in State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1841: (1977)1 S.C.J. 255:1976 S.C.R. (Supp.) wherein after elaborating the scope of the word ‘control’ the Court opined that if in a case the High Court is of the opinion that a particular Judicial Officer is not fit to be retained in service, the High Court will communicate that opinion to the Governor who, under Constitution, is the authority to dismiss, remove, reduce in rank or terminate appointment of such Judicial Officers and the recommendation made by the High Court be accepted by the Governor. 8. Again, the Baldev Raj v. Punj & Har. H. C, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2490: (1977)1 S.C.R. emphasis was laid by the Supreme Court on the concept of ‘control’ of the High Court the Subordinate Courts and while answering the question as to whether the Governor bound, under the Constitution, to accept the recommendation of the High Court and pass order of removal of a Judicial Officer, if so recommended, the Supreme Court observed when the High Court exercising disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary finds, proper enquiry, that a certain officer is guilty of gross misconduct and is unfit to be retained in service and, therefore, recommends to the Governor his removal or dismissal, recommendation of the High Court in respect of the judicial officer “ should always accepted by the Governor.” 9. In Chief Justice, A.P. v. L.V.A.Dikshitulu, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 193:1978Lab. I.C. 1672: 2S.C.C. 54, the apex court once again reiterated that the ‘control’ vested in the High being exclusive and not dual, an enquiry into the conduct of a member of the judiciary be ordered by the High Court alone and by no other authority. 10. The law is, thus, well settled that the High Court has the exclusive disciplinary over the subordinate judiciary, which includes proceeding against such an departmentally, and that if the High Court, while exercising disciplinary control over subordinate judiciary finds, after a proper enquiry, that the officer is unfit to be retained service, it shall make a recommendation to the Governor to pass the appropriate order. view of the all pervasive control of the High Court over the subordinate judiciary, recommendation of the High Court “ should always be accepted by the Governor”. 11. The complaint regarding the delay in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, view, is only an argument of despair, since no prejudice was either alleged or established have been caused to the appellant by that alleged delay and the evidence on record, was carefully scrutinised by the enquiring authority and thereafter by the disciplinary authority and on by the learned single Judge, established beyond any doubt the charges of corruption against the appellant. 12. Learned counsel then made a feeble attempt to say that the recommendation of the Court was vitiated by mala fides. The argument needs a notice only to be rejected. It a meeting of the Judges of the High Court that the report of the Enquiry Officer came considered and a decision was taken in their collective wisdom to make a recommendation the Governor for terminatian of the services of the appellant on being satisfied that charges of corruption had been established against him. Allegations of mala fide collective body of Judges of the High Court are totally meaningless and even otherwise based on no factual foundations in the writ petition. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon certain judgments in support submissions and we may now briefly refer to those judgments. 14. In Bank Deo Pari Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1977 N.O.C.279 (All), Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the question as to whether the decision administrative committee in matters of administration and disciplinary control could treated to be the decision of the Full Court and opined in the negative. This case has relevance to the instant case where it was the Full Court which had made recommendation in its collective wisdom to the Governor. 15. Reliance placed on Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, (1953)1 AII E.R. 1113, v. National Dock Harbour Board, (1956)3 All E.R. 939, and on Lingam v. Minister Agriculture, (1948)1 All.E.R. 781, is totally misplaced as the Court of Appeal was considering specific rules and regulations under various statutes. They have no relevance to the case hand. 16. 15. Reliance placed on Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, (1953)1 AII E.R. 1113, v. National Dock Harbour Board, (1956)3 All E.R. 939, and on Lingam v. Minister Agriculture, (1948)1 All.E.R. 781, is totally misplaced as the Court of Appeal was considering specific rules and regulations under various statutes. They have no relevance to the case hand. 16. M.Chinnappa Reddy v. State, A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 234, on which also reliance has placed by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot advance the case of the appellant because the judgment has no semblance of applicability to the facts of the present case. was the indication of the proposed punishment in the memo of charges which was frowned upon in that case. 17. Pradyat Kumar v. C.J. of Calcutta, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 285: 1956S.C.J. 259: 1956S.C.C. 402: (1955)2 S.C.R 1331, on which also reliance has been placed, expressly declared though no ‘judicial tribunal’ can delegate its functions unless it is enabled to do so expressly or by necessary implication, the exercise of the power “to appoint or dismiss an officer exercise not of judicial power but of administrative power”. The Supreme Court went hold: “......It is well recognised that a statutory functionary exercising such a power cannot be to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official enquire and report. That is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power. cannot be delegated except where the law specifically so provides is the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power. A functionary who has to decide administrative matter, such as the dismissal of a member of the staff, can obtain material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible and convenient, provided only the affected party has a fair opportunity to correct or contradict any relevant prejudicial material. ” This judgment, therefore, instead of supporting the cause of the appellant, totally negatives what has been argued on his behalf and lends support to the judgment of the learned Judge. 18. No other point was argued. 19. Thus, for what we have said above, we have not been persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the learned single Judge who rightly dismissed the writ petition. Writ appeal consequently fails and is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.