The bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna while referring to the judgment in Ajit Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand in which it was held that such a power could be exercised by the High Court to dispense with an enquiry for a reason to be recorded in writing and such dispensation of an enquiry for valid reasons when recommended to the Governor.
The court of highest record has observed that the High Courts have power to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
In the present case, a Full court resolution was passed for dismissal of the judicial officers from judicial service in the State Government of Bihar, to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. However, the Bench granted liberty to the High Court to invoke the power under clause(b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution at an appropriate stage with the requirement to record reasons and follow the prescribed procedure as per the law.
Therefore, before the Supreme Court the judicial officers challenged this portion of the order on the ground that the liberty so granted permits the High Court to record reasons per se post the earlier order of dismissal which is contrary to law and the Constitution.
The bench noted that in the case of Jaswant Singh v State of Punjab it was urged that this power exclusively vests with the Governor alone who has to satisfy himself and record in writing the reasons why it is not reasonably practical to hold an inquiry. The bench referring to the above-mentioned judgments gave its verdict in the present case as to HCs have power to dispense with disciplinary proceedings for dismissing judicial officers by recording reasons.