Chief Justice's control over High Court staff includes dismissal; enquiry delegation and Public Service Commission consultation were upheld as unnecessary.

The Chief Justice's constitutional control over High Court staff includes the power of appointment, regulation of service conditions, suspension, and dismissal; the dismissal was therefore within his authority. The enquiry into charges could lawfully be entrusted to another Judge because the function was administrative, and obtaining a report did not amount to impermissible delegation of the decision-making power; the dismissal was not vitiated on that ground. Prior consultation with the State Public Service Commission under article 320(3)(c) was held inapplicable to High Court staff, who are under the Chief Justice's administrative control rather than the State Government's. The challenge to the dismissal therefore failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Justice had power to dismiss a member of the High Court staff; (ii) Whether the Chief Justice could lawfully delegate the enquiry into the charges to another Judge; (iii) Whether prior consultation with the State Public Service Commission was necessary under article 320(3)(c) before dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Justice had power to dismiss a member of the High Court staff.

Analysis: The power of appointment to the High Court staff was historically vested in the Chief Justice under the Letters Patent and continued under successive constitutional regimes. The scheme of section 241 and section 242(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and later article 229 of the Constitution, vested in the Chief Justice not merely appointment but also the power to regulate conditions of service. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act expanded the word "appointment" to include suspension and dismissal. The continued operation of earlier service rules, if any, did not displace this constitutional scheme.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice had the power to dismiss the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice could lawfully delegate the enquiry into the charges to another Judge.

Analysis: The power to appoint or dismiss an officer was characterised as administrative, not judicial. In exercising an administrative power, the authority may obtain materials through a responsible officer or Judge and act on the report, while retaining ultimate responsibility for the decision. Delegation of the enquiry was therefore not delegation of the power itself.

Conclusion: The enquiry could validly be entrusted to another Judge and the dismissal was not vitiated on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether prior consultation with the State Public Service Commission was necessary under article 320(3)(c) before dismissal.

Analysis: The constitutional language of article 320(3)(c) differed materially from that used in articles 310, 311, and 229. The High Court staff were held to be under the administrative control of the Chief Justice, not under the Government of the State, and the consultative safeguard in article 320(3)(c) was treated as inapplicable to such staff. The scheme of article 229 was also viewed as inconsistent with importing that consultation requirement.

Conclusion: Prior consultation with the State Public Service Commission was not required.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal failed on all substantive grounds, and the order of dismissal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of appointment vested in the Chief Justice in relation to High Court staff includes the power of dismissal, and the constitutional scheme governing that staff excludes the application of article 320(3)(c) consultation with the Public Service Commission.

---