Article 235 includes disciplinary control over subordinate judges, but retirement retention cannot be used to finish inquiries.

Article 235 was construed as conferring disciplinary control over District Judges and subordinate judges, not mere administrative supervision, because the constitutional scheme aims to secure the independence of the subordinate judiciary. The High Court was therefore competent to initiate and hold departmental inquiries, subject to the constitutional limits on appointment, dismissal and the protections in Article 311. Rule 75(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, however, was meant to permit retention in service on public grounds and could not be used to keep a judicial officer in service solely to complete disciplinary proceedings. Repeated extensions for that purpose were unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "control" in Article 235 of the Constitution includes disciplinary jurisdiction over District Judges and judges subordinate to them, including the power to hold departmental inquiries; (ii) Whether Rule 75(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules could be used to retain a judicial officer in service beyond the normal age of retirement for the purpose of conducting disciplinary proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "control" in Article 235 of the Constitution includes disciplinary jurisdiction over District Judges and judges subordinate to them, including the power to hold departmental inquiries.

Analysis: The constitutional setting of Articles 233 to 235, their placement immediately after the provisions relating to the High Courts, and their historical background showed that the object was to secure the independence of the subordinate judiciary. The word "control" was read in that context and in the light of its use in the service rules, the scope of Article 235, the distinction between control and superintendence, and the Directive Principle in Article 50. The Court held that mere administrative supervision would not be sufficient to achieve the constitutional purpose. The Governor's powers of appointment and dismissal under Article 233 and Article 311 did not exclude the High Court's control for disciplinary purposes.

Conclusion: Article 235 includes disciplinary control, and the High Court is competent to initiate and hold disciplinary inquiries against District Judges and judges subordinate to them, subject to the constitutional limits on appointment, dismissal, and the special protections in Article 311.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 75(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules could be used to retain a judicial officer in service beyond the normal age of retirement for the purpose of conducting disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 75(a) was framed to permit retention in service on public grounds where continued service was needed, not to keep an officer in service merely to facilitate an inquiry. The Court contrasted it with the separate suspension-related provision in the Fundamental Rules and held that repeated extensions under Rule 75(a) for the sole purpose of continuing departmental proceedings were inconsistent with the rule's object and language.

Conclusion: Rule 75(a) could not lawfully be used to extend service for the purpose of completing disciplinary proceedings, and the purported retention was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was unsustainable, and the appeal by the State failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 235, the High Court's control over the subordinate judiciary includes disciplinary jurisdiction, and a retirement-retention rule meant for public-service extension cannot be used as a device to continue service solely for departmental inquiry.

---