Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 519 (ALL)

Chandra Narain Tripathi v. Union Of India

1997-05-06

I.M.QUDDUSI, PALOK BASU

body1997
JUDGMENT (1.) Palok Basu, I.M.Quddusi To start with, it may be stated that to this Court, the prayers as contained in the writ petition, do not appear to be very palatable. The petitioner Chandra Narain Tripathi is a practising lawyer of this Court and has filed this writ petition praying that it may be treated as pro bono public. It contains five prayers and two have been added by an amendment application which has been allowed. Sri Ashok Mehta may add the two reliefs after the relief No. 5 as relief Nos. 6 and 7. The newly added relief related to the 'Note' appearing in the Notification dated 29th January, 1997, a copy of which has already been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Relief No. 7 makes a request that an appointment of Committee may be directed to investigate, enquire and find out the persons who conspired in the deception of altering "the Rule 20". (2.) THE initial relief No. 1 seeks a mandamus calling upon the Honourable the Chief Justice to take immediate deterrent action against the guilty officials of the Registry, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench dated 17.12.1996 in Writ Petition No. 4449 of 1996, Kalyan Chandra Srivastava v. Honourable Chief Justice and others, (already reported in 1997 (1) AWC 360). Relief No. 2 is that a mandamus should be issued requesting the Honourable the Chief Justice to amend, modify and enlarge the terms of reference of the enquiry Committee as appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice so as to include the matter of deception, fraud etc. Relief 4 appears to be connected with the aforesaid prayers and it requires a writ of certiorari calling for the record relating to the said amendment in the Rule 20 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 of the Court. Relief No. 5 is the normal one which is always pleaded in writ petitions, i.e., any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled, may be granted. At the end it may be mentioned that relief No. 3 is containing the prayer that Registrar of this Court who has been impleaded by name as opposite party No. 3, be not appointed as a Judge of this Court by Union of India which has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1. At the end it may be mentioned that relief No. 3 is containing the prayer that Registrar of this Court who has been impleaded by name as opposite party No. 3, be not appointed as a Judge of this Court by Union of India which has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Mehta has been heard at considerable length in support of writ petition. Sri Jain relied upon Article 217 of the Constitution and four decisions of the Supreme Court in order to lend support to his arguments concerning six reliefs as mentioned above: (i) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (Paragraphs 14 and 15), (ii) Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773 (Paragraphs 8 and 9), (iii) S. C. Advocates' Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268 (Paragraphs 413 and 501 (9), and (iv) State of Orissa v. Vimal Kumar Mohanti, AIR 1994 SC 2296 (Paragraphs 8 and 12). (3.) IT may be mentioned here that in this Court there is a notably honest and upright officer by the name of Sri Kalyan Chandra Srivastava. He was expecting promotion but was probably not getting specific response perhaps in view of the Rule 20 of the said Rules as those were said to be reading then consequently a Writ Petition (No. 4449 of 1996) was filed by Sri Kalyan Chandra Srivastava. During the course of argument in the said writ petition it appeared to the Division Bench that Rule 20 of the Rules governing officers' promotions etc. of this Court as it existed did not incorporate in it all the amendments which were passed by the Judges Committee or the Administrative Committee, as the case may be. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the then Additional Advocate General was espousing the cause of the High Court before the Division Bench. There was a concession made by him that on the question of how and why certain interpolations, etc. appear to be existing in the original Rule 20, could not be explained by him. IT has been noted by the Division Bench as under : "IT is only when the record were examined in detail by us that too with deep penetrating scrutiny that the deception could be deciphered and discovered. appear to be existing in the original Rule 20, could not be explained by him. IT has been noted by the Division Bench as under : "IT is only when the record were examined in detail by us that too with deep penetrating scrutiny that the deception could be deciphered and discovered. IT is impossible to believe that the Registry was unaware of the deception. Even then Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi fairly conceded the fact in course of argument, the Registry sought to engage Shri A. K. Yog to support their action." The Division Bench then observed in Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 as under : "24. For the aforementioned reasons the unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 cannot be sustained. As the authorised and unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 contained in the Notification dated 13.12.1994 are intermixed, we consider it proper to quash the whole Rule with a direction to the Registrar to publish the amended Rule 20 afresh. 25. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. Rule 20 contained in the Notification dated 13.12.1994 is declared ultra vires and is quashed. The Registrar of this Court is directed to get Rule 20 containing amendments proposed by the Judges Committee's report dated 6.10.1994 as accepted by Honourable the Chief Justice by orders dated 14.11.1994 and 10/18.12.1994 published forthwith. The Bench secretaries will be entitled to their quota for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Registrar. 26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made above, Honourable the Chief Justice may consider propriety and desirability of taking appropriate action against the guilty officials o this Court who are responsible for preparing and publishing unauthorised amendments of Rule 20." (4.) THE argument of Sri Jain is two-fold. 26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made above, Honourable the Chief Justice may consider propriety and desirability of taking appropriate action against the guilty officials o this Court who are responsible for preparing and publishing unauthorised amendments of Rule 20." (4.) THE argument of Sri Jain is two-fold. To start with the first it is said that Honourable the Chief Justice has not either followed the directions of the Division Bench or did not comply with the directions contained in the judgment; second that the Registrar knowingly appended a 'note' in the Notification dated 29.1.1997 which reads as under : "Note.-These amendments will come into force with effect from the date of publication of Notification in the Official Gazette and govern only the future appointments." According to Sri Jain, this note does not carry out the intention of the Division Bench deciding the case and he describes the note as a mischief on the part of Registrar. Having heard Sri Jain, as stated at considerable length, arguments are repelled. The reasons are noted in the paragraphs below. (5.) THE Division Bench's Judgment is admittedly dated 17th December, 1996. THE Notification in pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench has been issued on and is dated 29.1.1997 which is published in Gazette on 30.1.1997, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. THE publication of this Notification does away with the objectionable part which stood perhaps incorporated in the original draft rule or the original rule itself as a result of some deception etc., as noticed in the judgment that part does not appear any more in the said Notification dated 29.1.1997. However, the Notification itself says that it was so published under the direction of the Division Bench's decision in Writ Petition No. 4449 of 1996. Kalyan Chandra Srivastava v. Honourable the Chief Justice and it is made for amendment in Allahabad High Court Officer's and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, (to apply on 29.1.1997 as per the note). (6.) IT is again admitted to Sri Jain that Honourable the Chief Justice has on 30.1.1997 itself constituted a Committee. The terms of the Committee has been referred to in Annexure 3 to the writ petition which for ready reference should be quoted: "Committee is constituted with Honourable Mr. (6.) IT is again admitted to Sri Jain that Honourable the Chief Justice has on 30.1.1997 itself constituted a Committee. The terms of the Committee has been referred to in Annexure 3 to the writ petition which for ready reference should be quoted: "Committee is constituted with Honourable Mr. Justice B. M. Lal, Honourable Mr. Justice R. R. K. Trivedi and Honourable Mr. Justice B. S. Chauhan to enquire and ascertain the person/persons responsible for preparing and publishing the unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 and suggest appropriate action and remedial measures to be taken in the matter." Sri Jain was requested to tell the court the date on which this Committee was constituted by Honourable Chief Justice because the writ petition was silent on that issue. Sri Jain could not furnish the said information. It may be mentioned here that special counsel Sri S. M. A. Kazmi informed the court that the said Committee has been constituted by Honourable the Chief Justice on 30.1.1997 itself. Sri Jain does not dispute the correctness of the date. (7.) FROM what has been stated above, it is clear that the Committee appointed by Honourable the Chief Justice is headed by a second senior-most Honourable Judge of this Court. The terms of reference as quoted above do go to indicate the seriousness of the matter. It is admitted that the Committee has not submitted as yet any report to Honourable the Chief Justice. (8.) THE other limb of argument of Sri Jain may be taken up now which relates to the terms of reference in Judges' Committee. It is contended that the reference, as it is, does not deal with the second aspect specially adverted to in the Division Bench decision and that related to the beneficiaries who may have obtained advantage because of the said alleged deception or wrong insertion in the existing Rule 20. This Court would not like to hazard at this stage to deal with the argument on merit for the simple reason that there may be difference in individuals thinking. If one is to say that Honourable the Chief Justice is only expecting the Committee report to come so that the other matters connected therewith seeking action against the beneficiaries may also be taken up by him either individually or through Committee, one may not be wrong. If one is to say that Honourable the Chief Justice is only expecting the Committee report to come so that the other matters connected therewith seeking action against the beneficiaries may also be taken up by him either individually or through Committee, one may not be wrong. It is not to suggest as to how Honourable the Chief Justice would like to deal with two sets of persons, one who may be responsible for causing fraudulent deception, etc. in the rules, and the other which may be direct or indirect beneficiaries of the deception, etc. in the said rule. After the Committee report is submitted, the Honourable the Chief Justice may follow some method which is not obvious and should not be anticipated at this stage. It may be relevant to note that when a Committee is appointed by Honourable the Chief Justice requesting to suggest appropriate action and remedial measures also, the report may be submitted to the Honourable the Chief Justice at the earliest convenience by the Committee constituted. Therefore, Sri Jain's attack about the note' in the Notification (already quoted above) as being the outcome of the mischief of Registrar, is without any basis and has to be mentioned only to be rejected. It is supposed that when Honourable the Chief Justice makes up his mind as to the persons who have got their benefit illegally through the aforesaid amendment or insertion fraudulently incorporated, action has to be followed as against them. Likewise if there was someone who has got benefit under the legitimate portions of the said rule, they have not to be indicated or dealt with in disciplinary proceedings just because there has been some deception in the rule at the behest of some other. THE entire matter is likely to be taken up by Honourable the Chief Justice in pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench after he receives the Committee report. Having thus discussed the main argument of Sri Jain, the last and a very serious argument advanced has to be dealt with. According to Sri Jain, it would be expected that after reading the judgment, the Honourable the Chief Justice should have suspended the present Registrar from his post. Having thus discussed the main argument of Sri Jain, the last and a very serious argument advanced has to be dealt with. According to Sri Jain, it would be expected that after reading the judgment, the Honourable the Chief Justice should have suspended the present Registrar from his post. In this connection, it was argued, placing reliance on relief No. 3, that since the Registrar ought to have been suspended, his name should not have been recommended by Honourable the Chief Justice for appointment as a Judge. For these arguments, reliance was placed on certain other observations of the Division Bench such as engaging counsel by the Registry inspite of statement of Sri Rakesh Dwivedi. The observation of the Bench is that: "The sequence of events and the facts disclosed suggests a clever and deceptive manoeuvre to interpolate the amendment of Rule 20 masterminded by the Registry dressed in such a connected manner so as not to attract the attention of Honourable the Chief Justice reposing absolute confidence in the Registry." (9.) IT may be mentioned that some other portion of the judgment were also relied upon by Sri Jain in furthering his argument that the present Registrar should have been suspended by Honourable the Chief Justice after pronouncement of the Division Bench judgment. In this connection, it may be noted that the present Registrar was appointed in this Court as Registrar on 15.11.1994 which date has been given by Sri Kazmi and has not been disputed by Sri Jain. The Division Bench judgment itself indicates that the Notification was published on 16.12.1994, the Judges' Committee report is dated 16.10.1994 and it was accepted by Honourable the Chief Justice lastly on 18.12.1994. The aforesaid dates themselves demonstrate obviously so many things which need not be mentioned here. (10.) To end this aspect of the matter, the reliance of Sri Jain on the observation of the Division Bench decision that: "Similarly after the process and making of the decision is over, the decision is implemented and translated into action, through the office of the Registry. The said part is nothing but ministerial. There is no scope for the Registry to take any liberty. The decision-making authority reposes faith and confidence on the Registry that it would carry on the decision faithfully. The said part is nothing but ministerial. There is no scope for the Registry to take any liberty. The decision-making authority reposes faith and confidence on the Registry that it would carry on the decision faithfully. The carriage on the decision is duty of the Registry by reason of the order given to them in course of their performance of their duty. Any deviation is considered dereliction or disobedience of miscarriage of duty on the part of such officers," has to be accepted as it is and this Court has no doubt that functioning of this Court would become impossible if the Registrar does not function honestly. It was so rightly argued by Sri Jain that this Courts' duty is not confined to the judicial side, it also travels down to the administrative exigency and may be at times exercise Legislative jurisdiction. With about 70 districts and with perhaps equal number of officers in Registry, the Honourable the Chief Justice has a stupendous task to perform. Therefore, it was so rightly emphasised that every direction of the court should be followed by the Registrar and complied strictly in accordance with the direction of the court and it should follow the law and mandate scrupulously. Having noticed all the arguments of Sri Jain, it may be mentioned that Sri Kazmi raised an objection concerning Paragraph 20 of the writ petition which is not happily worded and also about ground No. 'A' in the grounds. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain wanted this Court to quote the above mentioned Para 20 in the order but this Court does not think it necessary because the substance of whatever is contained in Paragraph 20 and in ground 'A' has already been noted above. (11.) IT may be mentioned that in view of the facts noted in the preceding paragraphs, reliance placed by Sri Jain on the rulings is not justified as those cases have at this stage no application for simple reason that Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted a Committee and the Committee report is yet awaited. There is no reason to think that the Honourable the Chief Justice shall not take necessary action in pursuance of the decision of the Division Bench in closest proximity after his Lordship shall have received the report of Committee which may be coming soon. There is no reason to think that the Honourable the Chief Justice shall not take necessary action in pursuance of the decision of the Division Bench in closest proximity after his Lordship shall have received the report of Committee which may be coming soon. (12.) IN view of what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily.