https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275323 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. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275323 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275323