IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.218 OF 2011

Justice P.D. Dinakaran … Petitioner  

Versus

Judges Inquiry Committee and another … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the  

Committee  constituted  by  the  Chairman of  the  Council  of  States  (Rajya  

Sabha) (for short, ‘the Chairman’) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry)  

Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for supply of  

the  details  and  documents  enumerated  in  paragraph  4(a)  to  (m)  of  

application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction  

of the Committee to frame certain charges.

2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for  

presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner,  

who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under  

Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India.  The acts of  

misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the  

notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in  

support  of  the  allegations.   For  the  sake  of  convenient  reference,  the  

allegations contained in the notice of motion are reproduced below:

“I. Possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of  income.

II. Unlawfully securing five Housing Board plots, in favour  of his wife, and two daughters.

III. Entering  into  Benami  transactions  prohibited  and  punishable under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)  Act, 1988.

IV. Acquiring  and  possessing  agricultural  holdings  beyond  ceiling  limit  under  the  Tamil  Nadu  Land  Reforms  (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

V. Illegal encroachment on Government and public property  to deprive dalits and the poor of their right to livelihood.

VI. Violation of the human rights of dalits and the poor.

VII. Destruction of evidence during official enquiry.

VIII. Obstructing public servant on duty.

2

IX. Repeated  undervaluation  of  properties  at  the  time  of  registration of sale to evade stamp duty.

X. Carrying  out  illegal  construction  in  breach  of  Town  Planning Law and planning permit.

XI. Misuse of official position to unlawfully secure property  and to facilitate other illegal acts for personal gain.

XII. Abuse of judicial office:

A. To pass dishonest judicial orders:

a) Contrary to  settled principles  of  law to  favour a  few individuals or for his own unjust enrichment,  at  the  cost  of  the  public  exchequer  and  the  country’s natural resources.

b) In  matters  where  he  had  personal  and  direct  pecuniary interest to secure several properties for  his family.

 B. To take irregular and dishonest administrative actions:

a) for  constituting  Benches  and  fixing  Rosters  of  judges to facilitate dishonest judicial decisions.

b) to  make  arbitrary  and  illegal  appointments  and  transfers.”

The  explanatory  note  appended  to  the  notice  of  motion  contained  

detailed  facts  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  signatories  of  the  motion,  

supported the acts of misbehaviour alleged against the petitioner.

3

3. After the motion was admitted, the Chairman constituted a Committee  

comprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr.  

Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and  

Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate.   

4. Before the Committee could commence its proceedings, Mr. Justice  

A.R.  Dave was elevated to  this  Court  and,  in his  place,  Mr.  Justice J.S.  

Khehar, the then Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was appointed as  

member of the Committee.  In September, 2010, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam,  

Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as Presiding Officer because  

Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar recused from the Committee.

5. After  preliminary  scrutiny  of  the  material  placed  before  it  which  

included  documents  summoned  from  Government  departments  and  

agencies/instrumentalities  of  the  State  and  statements  of  some  persons  

recorded in the context  of  the allegation made against  the petitioner,  the  

Committee  issued  notice  dated  16.3.2011  requiring  him  to  appear  on  

9.4.2011 to answer the charges.  The notice was accompanied by a statement  

of charges and lists of documents and witnesses.  Each of the 14 charges  

enumerated in the notice  was supported by specific  grounds with minute  

details and documents.     

4

6. Immediately  after  receiving  notice,  the  petitioner  submitted  

application dated 7.4.2011 to the Chairman with the prayer that a direction  

may be issued for supply of 10 documents specified therein.  By another  

application of the same date, the petitioner sought audience of the Chairman.  

On the next date, i.e., 8.4.2011, he made a representation to the Chairman  

with the prayer that order admitting notice of motion may be withdrawn,  

order constituting the Inquiry Committee may be rescinded and notice issued  

by the Committee may be annulled.  Simultaneously, he raised an objection  

to the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of the Committee by alleging  

that he was biased.   On 9.4.2011, the petitioner sent a letter to the Presiding  

Officer of the Committee enclosing therewith a copy of representation dated  

8.4.2011 made to the Chairman and requested that further proceedings may  

be deferred till the same was decided. The petitioner’s request was turned  

down by the Presiding Officer of the Committee vide order dated 9.4.2011  

and he was asked to file written statement of defence latest by 20.4.2011.  

After 10 days, the petitioner submitted two applications dated 19.4.2011 to  

the  Committee.  In  the  first  application,  he made a  request  for  supply  of  

copies  of  about  three  dozen documents.   By  the  second application,  the  

petitioner raised several objections against the notice.  One of his objections  

was that the charges framed by the Committee are beyond the scope of the  

5

notice of motion presented before the Rajya Sabha and that while framing  

the charges, the Committee had taken into consideration the material which  

did not form part of the notice of motion.  Another objection taken by the  

petitioner  was  that  even  before  issuing  notice  under  Section  3(4),  the  

Committee had, with the assistance of the advocate appointed under Section  

3(9), made investigation into the charges and this was legally impermissible.  

The  petitioner  also  objected  to  the  participation  of  Shri  P.P.  Rao  in  the  

proceedings of the Committee on the ground of bias.  

7. The  applications  made  by  the  petitioner  to  the  Committee  were  

disposed  of  by  two separate  orders  dated  24.4.2011.   By  one  order,  the  

Committee  virtually  rejected  the  petitioner’s  request  for  supply  of  the  

documents specified in paragraph 4 of the first application.  The Committee  

observed that documents mentioned at paragraph 4 (g.1), (g.2), (g.3), (g.6),  

(g.16) and paragraph 4(j) and 4(k) are not available with it and the material  

on which the charges were based had already been supplied to the petitioner.  

The  relevant  portions  of  the  order  passed  in  relation  to  the  petitioner’s  

demand for supply of documents are reproduced below:

“It may be stated at the outset that the documents/materials at  paragraph 4(g.l), (g.2), (g.3), (g.6), (g. 16) and paragraph 4 (j)  and 4(k) are not available with this Committee.  

6

None of the documents/materials/information in the long  list drawn up so laboriously is of any relevance to the enquiry  being conducted by this Committee or would serve any purpose  in  the  preparation/submission  of  the  written  statement  of  defence to the charges served upon the judge. In case of some  of the items in the list the request to supply copies is plainly  frivolous. All the materials on which the charges are based are,  as  noted  above,  comprehensively  served  upon  the  applicant  along with the list of witnesses.  

Now, taking up each of the items in the list one by one  the  Committee  is  of  the  considered  view  that  the  documents/materials enumerated at sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)  of  paragraph  4  have  no  relevance  to  the  present  enquiry:  Further,  from  the  materials  on  record  the  Committee  has  reasons to believe that the Judge is already in possession of a  copy of the notice of motion. Nevertheless, just to satisfy the  request, the judge may be given copies of the notice of motion  and the documents/evidence submitted in its support.

The document at sub-paragraph (c) is a public document  and there may be no objection to giving it to the Judge.

The document at sub-paragraph (d) has no relevance to  the inquiry before the Committee and the request for its supply  is disallowed.  

As  to  the  item  at  sub-paragraph  (e),  the  Inquiry  Committee has not framed any formal Rules.

The procedure proposed to be adopted by the Committee  would be fully explained at the first sitting of the hearing, in  case there is the need to hold further hearings.

The documents  at  sub-paragraph (g)  (1),  (2),  (3),  (11),  (12), (14) are inter-departmental letters of which no copy can be  given to the Judge. The rest of the materials at sub-paragraph  (g) (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (13), (15), (16), (17), (18),  (19),  (20),  (21),  (22),  (23),  (24),  (25)  and  (26),  have  no  

7

relevance to the filing of the written statement and hence, the  prayer for furnishing copies of those documents is disallowed.

Regarding sub-paragraph (h), if any additional document/  material/ information or an additional witness is proposed to be  used/ examined in support of the charges, the list of additional  documents/witnesses would be supplied to the applicant in due  course.

The information sought in sub-paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l)  and (m) are prima facie frivolous and are rejected.

Having said all this, the Committee would like to add that  it has got nothing to hide and whatever documents/materials are  available  with  it  are  open to  inspection.   The applicant  may  inspect or cause inspection of the documents available with the  Committee during working hours on any day.”

By  the  second  order,  the  Committee  rejected  the  preliminary  

objections  raised  by  the  petitioner  to  its  jurisdiction  and  the  procedure  

adopted by it for framing the charges.  The relevant portions of the second  

order are extracted below:

“In case the ground on which the removal of the judge is sought  is not incapacitation but misbehaviour it would be incumbent  upon the committee, before framing the definite charges against  the judge, to examine all instances of misbehaviour, apart from  their nature and magnitude. Further in case while examining a  certain instance of misbehaviour the Committee comes across  materials indicating other instances of misbehaviour it would be  obligatory for the Committee to thoroughly follow those leads  to the other instances and to bring the full facts to light.

The procedure under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry)  Act,  1968 envisages  the  commencement  of  proceedings with  the notice of motion sent by either the Speaker of the House of  

8

the People or the Chairman of the Council of States followed by  investigation at the instance of the Committee. Next step in the  sequence of procedure is the framing of definite charges on the  basis  of  which  the  investigation  is  proposed  to  be  held.  Framing  of  definite  charges  is  thus  the  foundation  for  the  process of participatory investigation.   Sub-section (3) does not  contemplate  that  the  framing of  charges  must  necessarily  be  based  only  on  the  notice  of  motion  and  the  material  sent  therewith. In order to enable the Committee to frame definite  charges,  it  would  be  within  its  powers  to  have  preliminary  investigations made and then if need be, frame definite charges  which  would  then  form  the  basis  of  the  participatory  investigation.

The procedure as indicated above would also be fair to  the Judge as any spurious or unsubstantiated material would get  screened off in the process. It is following the above process  that  in  the  instant  case,  the  Committee  deemed  it  fit  not  to  include  at  least  two  of  the  charges  though  they  were  so  mentioned  in  the  notice  of  motion.  For  the  same  reasons  it  could  also  include  some  of  the  additional  charges  as  the  preliminary  enquiry  indicated.   The  power  to  conduct  investigation includes all incidental  and consequential powers  to sub-serve that power.

If the argument made on behalf the applicant is accepted  it would take the soul out of the provisions of section 3 of the  Act and render the investigation by the Committee completely  ineffectual.  The  job  of  the  Committee  is  not  to  simply  paraphrase the grounds in the notice of motion and to re-hash  the materials submitted before the House of the People or the  Council of States, as the case may be. A Committee consisting  of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of the  High  Court  and  a  distinguished  jurist  is  not  a  committee  of  draftsmen.

The second objection that the misbehaviour of a Judge in  order to constitute a basis  for his removal must relate to the  conduct of the Judge in the discharge of his duties is equally  without substance. It amounts to saying that it does not matter if  

9

beyond the Court hours a Judge is a thief in his personal life.  The submission is fit only to be taken note of and be rejected.

The third objection relates to the Committee's proceeding  on April 9, 2011, when the petition submitted by the applicant  asking for time was put up before Mr. Justice Aftab Alam who  rejected it by the order passed on that date. According to the  applicant,  the  order  of  that  date  is  non  est because  in  the  absence of the other two members there was no quorum for the  Committee's sitting.  In this regard it needs to be noted that the  previous sitting of the Committee was held on April 2, 2011  and  on  that  date  the  Committee  had  made  the  following  resolution:

“On the basis of the authorization made by Mr. Justice  J.S. Khehar and Mr. P.P. Rao, the Committee resolved  that on April 9, 2011, the date on which Mr. Justice  P.D. Dinakaran is directed to appear and submit his  response to the charges, the Presiding Officer of the  Committee, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, may fix the dates  for further proceedings of the Committee.”

The reason for the resolution was that the frequent visits  to Delhi, apart from personally taxing to Justice Khehar tended  to affect his work as the Chief Justice of the High Court. Mr.  P.P. Rao, similarly, had some other unavoidable commitment. It  was, therefore, felt that the applicant might submit his written  statement of defence in the presence of the Presiding Officer  alone who would fix the dates for further proceedings of the  Committee.

It is true that the petition filed on behalf of Mr. Justice  P.D.  Dinakaran  on  April  9,  2011,  was  put  up  before  the  Presiding Officer of the Committee while he was sitting singly  and he passed an order on that petition in the presence of the  counsel for the applicant. Nevertheless, the draft order was sent,  both to Justice Khehar and Mr. P.P. Rao and it was formalized  as  the  order  of  the  Committee,  only  after  incorporating  the  suggestions made by the other two members and when it was  finally approved by all the three members.  Consequently, the  

10

copy of  the order  was given to the counsel  for the applicant  only on April 11, 2011.”    

The Committee also held that the plea of bias raised against Shri P.P.  

Rao was an afterthought and was untenable.  We are not adverting to the  

reasons recorded by the Committee for arriving at this conclusion because  

the petitioner had challenged the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of  

the Committee in a separate petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of  

2011, which has since been disposed of.

8. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

petitioner placed before the Court a chart to show that the charges framed by  

the  Committee  under  Section  3(3)  were  not  in  consonance  with  the  

allegations contained in the notice of motion presented by 50 members of  

the Rajya Sabha and argued that charges No.3, 5, 13 and 14, which are not  

based on the allegations contained in the notice of motion are liable to be  

quashed as without jurisdiction.  Shri Patil emphasised that the Committee’s  

power to frame charges and make investigation is limited to the allegations  

on which the notice of motion is based and it does not have the jurisdiction  

to frame charges on other allegations.  Learned senior counsel also faulted  

the  procedure  adopted  by  the  Committee  by  pointing  out  that  the  

investigation contemplated under Section 3(2) commences with the framing  

11

of  definite  charges  under  Section  3(3)  which  are  required  to  be  

communicated  to the concerned Judge under Section 3(4)  and the power  

vested  in  the  Committee  under  Section  5  can  be  exercised  only  for  the  

purpose of making investigation under the Act but, in the present case, the  

Committee started investigation even before framing the charges, collected  

large number of documents and recorded statements of some persons with  

the assistance of the advocate appointed under Section 3(9).  Shri Patil then  

argued that  by making investigation  prior  to  the  framing of  charges,  the  

Committee has acted in violation of the scheme of the Act and the petitioner  

has a bona fide apprehension that the investigation to be made hereinafter  

will  be an empty formality.  Shri  Patil  relied upon the judgments of this  

Court  in  Sub-Committee  on Judicial  Accountability v. Union of  India  

(1991) 4 SCC 699, Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC  

506 and Krishna Swami v. Union of India and others (1992) 4 SCC 605  

as also the judgments of the Kerala, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in  

V. Padmanabha Ravi Varma Raja v.  Deputy Tahsildar,  Chittur AIR  

1963 Kerala 155,  Mahendra Bhawanji Thakar v. S.P. Pande, AIR 1964  

Bombay  170  and  Prem  Prakash  Gupta  v.  Union  of  India AIR  1977  

Allahabad  482  and  argued that  the  minority  view  expressed  by  K.  

Ramaswamy, J. in Krishna Swami’s case on the interpretation of Sections 3  

and 4 of the Act should be treated as law declared under Article 141 of the  

12

Constitution because the majority did not express any view on the questions  

framed by the three-Judge Bench.  Learned senior counsel further argued  

that  in  the  absence  of  any  contrary  view  by  the  majority,  the  minority  

opinion is binding on all including this Court unless the same is overruled by  

a larger Bench.  Shri Patil finally argued that violation of the mandate of  

Section 3 has the effect of vitiating the proceedings of the Committee and,  

therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

9. During the course of arguments in rejoinder, Shri Patil produced copy  

of order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the Central Government appointing Shri  

U.U.  Lalit,  Senior  Advocate  of  this  Court  to  assist  the  Committee  and  

argued  that  the  same  should  be  treated  as  nullity  being  ultra  vires the  

provisions of Section 3(9) which postulates appointment of an advocate by  

the Central Government to conduct the case against the Judge only when it  

is required to do so by the Speaker or the Chairman.  Learned senior counsel  

submitted  that  by  getting  an  advocate  appointed  for  its  assistance,  the  

Committee has assumed the role of an adversary and it can no longer be  

treated as an impartial body entrusted with the task of making investigation  

into the grounds on which the petitioner’s removal has been sought from the  

office of the Chief Justice.

13

10. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Committee  

relied upon paragraph 69 of the judgment of the majority of the Constitution  

Bench in  Sarojini  Ramaswami’s case  and argued that  the  Court  cannot  

quash  the  charges  at  an  intermediary  stage  and  it  will  be  open  to  the  

petitioner  to  challenge  the  same  in  case  the  report  of  the  Committee  is  

adverse to him and on a motion being passed by Parliament, he is removed  

from the office.  Shri Lalit then referred to Articles 121 and 124(4) and (5),  

the  judgments  in  Sub-Committee  on  Judicial  Accountability’s  case,  

Krishna Swami’s case and argued that for the purpose of framing charges  

under Section 3(3),  the Committee is entitled to scrutinise the allegations  

contained in the notice of motion and the supporting material and also make  

preliminary inquiry to prima facie satisfy itself that the particular allegations  

need  further  investigation.   Learned  senior  counsel  emphasised  that  

investigation into the allegations of misbehaviour levelled against a Judge of  

the High Court or the Supreme Court is a serious matter and before framing  

definite  charges  under  Section  3(3),  the  Committee  is  duty  bound  to  

carefully scrutinise the allegations contained in the notice of motion along  

with other material and then decide whether there exists sufficient ground  

for  framing  the  charges.   Shri  Lalit  submitted  that  the  investigation  

envisaged under Section 3(3) is participatory investigation and it has nothing  

to do with the preliminary inquiry, which can be made by the Committee for  

14

satisfying  itself  whether  the  particular  allegation  made  against  the  Judge  

constitutes an act of misbehaviour and warrants framing of charge.  Learned  

senior counsel further submitted that the Committee is not obliged to frame  

charges with reference to each and every allegation contained in the notice  

of  motion  and  if  after  making  preliminary  inquiry,  the  Committee  feels  

satisfied  that  the  particular  allegation  cannot  be  termed  as  an  act  of  

misbehaviour, then it has the discretion to not frame charge with reference to  

such allegation.  Learned senior  counsel  emphasised that  in this  case,  the  

Committee has framed charges after objectively considering the allegations  

contained in the notice of motion together with the explanatory note and the  

material made available or received by it from various sources as also the  

statements of some persons recorded in the course of preliminary inquiry  

and the allegation of bias levelled by the petitioner is wholly unfounded.  He  

submitted that  impartiality of the Committee is evinced from the fact that  

even though, the notice of motion contained allegations that the petitioner  

had passed judicial orders for extraneous reasons, manipulated constitution  

of the Benches and made arbitrary appointments and transfers of the staff of  

the High Court, charges have not been framed on these allegations.  Shri  

Lalit  submitted  that  all  the  charges  framed  against  the  petitioner  except  

charge No.14 have direct nexus with the allegations contained in the notice  

of  motion  and  the  explanatory  note  appended  thereto.   Learned  senior  

15

counsel  argued that even though charge No.14  is  not exactly relatable to  

what has been stated in the notice of motion, inasmuch as the allegation  

contained under the heading “disproportionate pecuniary resources” speaks  

of celebration of the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter at Bangalore with  

extreme opulence, the charge relates to non-payment of bills of the rooms  

booked at Madras Race Club and the electricity and illumination expenses,  

this minor deviation should not be made a ground for recording a conclusion  

that the Committee has acted beyond its jurisdiction.  Shri Lalit controverted  

the argument of Shri Patil that the view expressed in the minority opinion of  

Justice K. Ramaswamy in Krishna Swamy’s case should be treated as the  

law  laid  down  by  this  Court  under  Article  141  of  the  Constitution  by  

pointing  out  that  the  majority  had  specifically  disagreed  with  K.  

Ramaswamy, J.  

11. Shri P.P. Malhotra,  learned Additional Solicitor General referred to  

the preamble and Section 3 of the Act and argued that the Committee can  

certainly make a preliminary inquiry and even record statements of persons  

in connection with the allegations for the purpose of prima facie satisfying  

itself  about  the  necessity  of  making  further  investigation.   Shri  Malhotra  

relied upon the judgment of this Court in  H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi  

(1955)  1  SCR  1150:AIR  1955  SC  196  and  argued  that  the  provisions  

16

contained  in  the  Act  do  not  impose  any  embargo  on  the  making  of  

preliminary inquiry by the Committee as a prelude to the framing of charges  

under Section 3(3).   

12. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted  

that the Committee constituted under Section 3(2) is vested with the power  

to devise its own procedure for the purpose of making investigation and no  

exception can be taken if a preliminary inquiry is made for the purpose of  

framing definite charges against the Judge.  Shri Bhushan further submitted  

that in the absence of statutory bar, the Committee can seek assistance of an  

advocate  and  the  Central  Government  did  not  commit  any  illegality  by  

appointing  Shri  U.U.  Lalit,  Senior  Advocate  to  assist  the  Committee.  

Learned counsel invited the Court’s  attention to the report  of the Inquiry  

Committee headed by Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, which had inquired into the  

allegations of misbehaviour levelled against Justice V. Ramaswami to show  

that  the  Committee  had taken the  assistance  of  S/Shri  F.S.  Nariman and  

Rajender Singh, Senior Advocates and Shri Raju Ramachandran, Advocate.

13. We have considered the respective arguments.  The questions which  

need determination by the Court are:

17

(1) Whether  the  Committee  constituted  under  Section  3(2)  is  

entitled to make preliminary inquiry for the purpose of framing  

charges under Section 3(3).   

(2) Whether the Committee can seek assistance of an advocate for  

the purpose of framing the charges.

(3) Whether  the  charges  framed  against  the  petitioner  are  ultra  

vires the allegations contained in the notice of motion presented  

by 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.

For deciding question Nos. 1 and 2 which are interlinked, it will be  

useful to notice the provisions of Articles 121, 124(4) and (5) and 217(1) of  

the Constitution as also the provisions of the Act and the Judges (Inquiry)  

Rules, 1969 (for short, “the Rules”), which are as under:

“121. Restriction on discussion in Parliament–No discussion  shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any  Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge  of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to  the  President  praying  for  the  removal  of  the  Judge  as  hereinafter provided.

124. Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court–(4)  A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his  office  except  by  an  order  of  the  President  passed  after  an  address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of  the total membership of that House and by a majority of not  less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and  voting has been presented to the President in the same session  

18

for  such  removal  on  the  ground  of  proved  misbehaviour  or  incapacity.

(5)   Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the  presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of  the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).  

217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of  a  High  Court–(1) Every  Judge  of  a  High  Court  shall  be  appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal  after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor  of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other  than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and  shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as  provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he attains  the age of sixty-two years:

Provided that–

(a) xxx xxx xxx   

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in  the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal  of a Judge of the Supreme Court;

The   Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968   3. Investigation  into  misbehaviour  or  incapacity  of  Judge by Committee.–(1) If notice is given of a motion for  presenting an address to the President praying for the removal  of a Judge signed,–  

(a) In the case of a notice given in the House of the People,  by not less than one hundred members of that House;

(b) In the case of a notice given in the Council of States, by  not less than fifty members of that Council,

then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may,  after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after  

19

considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him  either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.  

(2) If the motion referred to in sub- section (1) is admitted,  the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall keep the  motion  pending  and  constitute  as  soon  as  may  be  for  the  purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which  the removal of a Judge is prayed for, a Committee consisting of  three members of whom–   

(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice  and other Judges of the Supreme Court;  

(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices  of the High Courts; and

(c) one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the  Speaker  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  Chairman,  a  distinguished jurist:  

Provided  that  where  notices  of  a  motion  referred  to  in  sub-  section  (1)  are  given  on  the  same  day  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  no  Committee  shall  be  constituted  unless  the  motion  has  been  admitted  in  both  Houses  and  where  such  motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall  be  constituted  jointly  by  the  Speaker  and  the  Chairman:   

Provided further that where notices of a motion as aforesaid are  given in the Houses of Parliament on different dates, the notice  which is given later shall stand rejected.   

(3) The Committee shall frame definite charges against the  Judge on the basis of which the investigation is proposed to be  held.   

(4) Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on  which each such charge is based shall be communicated to the  Judge  and  he  shall  be  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  presenting a written statement of defence within such time as  may be specified in this behalf by the Committee.  

20

(8) The  committee  may,  after  considering  the  written  statement of the Judge and the medical report, if any, amend the  charges framed under sub-section (3) and in such a case, the  Judge shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a  fresh written statement of defence.  

(9) The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker  or  the  Chairman,  or  both,  as  the  case  may  be,  appoint  an  advocate to conduct the case against the Judge.  

4. Report of Committee.–(1) Subject to any rules that may  be  made  in  this  behalf,  the  Committee  shall  have  power  to  regulate its own procedure in making the investigation and shall  give a reasonable opportunity to the Judge of cross-examining  witnesses, adducing evidence and of being heard in his defence.  

(2) At  the  conclusion  of  the  investigation,  the  Committee  shall submit its report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to  the  Chairman,  or  where  the  Committee  has  been constituted  jointly  by  the  Speaker  and  the  Chairman,  to  both  of  them,  stating  therein  its  findings  on each of  the  charges separately  with such observation on the whole case as it thinks fit.  

(3) The Speaker or the Chairman, or, where the Committee  has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman,  both of them, shall cause the report submitted under sub-section  (2) to be laid, as soon as may be, respectively before the House  of the People and the Council of States.

5. Powers of Committee.–For the purpose of making any  investigation  under  this  Act,  the  Committee  shall  have  the  powers of a civil court, while trying a suit, under the Code of  Civil  Procedure,  1908,  in  respect  of  the  following  matters,  namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person  and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

21

(c) receiving evidence on oath;

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or  documents;

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.  

The   Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969   

3. Presiding Officer—The member chosen under clause (a)   of sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall preside over the meetings  of  the  Inquiry  Committee,  or,  in  his  absence,  the  member  chosen under clause (b)  of  sub-section (2)  of  section 3 shall  preside over the meetings of the Inquiry Committee.

6. Objection to charges.—When the Judge appears,  he may  object  in  writing  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  framed  against him and if the objection is sustained by the majority of  the members of the Inquiry Committee, the Inquiry Committee  may  amend  the  charges  and  give  the  Judge  a  reasonable  opportunity of presenting a fresh written statement of defence.

7. Plea of Judge.—(1) If the Judge admits that he is guilty of  the misbehaviour,  or suffers from the incapacity,  specified in  the charges framed against him under sub-section (3) of section  3, the Inquiry Committee shall record such admission and may  state its findings on each of the charges in accordance with such  admission.

(2) If the Judge denies that he is guilty of the misbehaviour, or  suffers  from the  incapacity,  specified  in  the  charges  framed  against him under sub-section (3) of section 3, or if he refuses,  or omits, or is unable, to plead or desires that the inquiry should  be made, the Inquiry Committee shall proceed with the inquiry.

9. Report of the Inquiry Committee.–(1) Where the members  of  the  Inquiry  Committee  are  not  unanimous,  the  report  submitted by the Inquiry Committee under section 4 shall be in  

22

accordance with the findings of the majority of the members  thereof.

(2) The presiding officer of the Inquiry Committee shall–    

(a) cause its report to the prepared in duplicate,

(b) authenticate  each  copy  of  the  report  by  putting  his  signature thereon, and  

(c) forward, within a period of three months from the date on  which a copy of the charges framed under sub-section (3)  of section 3 is served upon the Judge, or, where no such  service is made, from the date of publication of the notice  referred  to  in  sub-rule  (3)  of  rule  5,  the  authenticated  copies of the report to the Speaker or Chairman by whom  the Committee was constituted, or where the Committee  was constituted jointly by them, to both of them:

Provided that the Speaker or Chairman, or both of them (where  the  Committee  was  constituted  jointly  by  them),  may,  for  sufficient  cause,  extend  the  time  within  which  the  Inquiry  Committee shall submit its report.

10. Recording of evidence.–(1) The evidence of each witness  examined  by the  Inquiry  Committee  shall  be  taken  down in  writing under the personal direction and superintendence of the  presiding officer thereof and the provisions of the Code of Civil  Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall, so far as may be, apply to  the examination of any witness by the Inquiry Committee.

(2) A copy of the evidence, oral and documentary, received by  the  Inquiry  Committee  shall  be  laid  before  each  House  of  Parliament along with the report laid before it under section 4.

11. Facilities to be accorded to a Judge for his defence.–(1)  Every Judge for  whose removal  a  motion has been admitted  shall  have a right  to consult,  and to be defended by,  a legal  practitioner of this choice.

23

(2) If the report of the Inquiry Committee contains a finding  that the Judge referred to in sub-rule (1) is not guilty of any  misbehaviour or does not suffer from any incapacity, then the  Central Government shall reimburse such Judge to the extent of  such part of the costs of his defence as the Inquiry Committee  may recommend.”

14. Since  the  provisions  of  Articles  121  and  124  have  already  been  

interpreted  by  the  Constitution  Benches  in  Sub-Committee  on  Judicial  

Accountability’s case and Sarojini Ramaswamy’s case, it is not necessary  

for us to repeat that exercise except making an observation that in view of  

Article 217(1)(b), that interpretation will be equally relevant in the matter of  

removal of a Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court.  A plain reading of  

Article 124(4) and clause (b) of Article 217(1) makes it clear that a Judge of  

the Supreme Court or the High Court cannot be removed except by an order  

of President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported  

by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not  

less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting has  

been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the  

ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.  Article 124(5) lays down that  

Parliament  may by law regulate  the procedure for the presentation of  an  

address and for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of  

a Judge under clause (4).   

24

15. Section 3(1) of the Act lays down that if notice of motion is given by  

the prescribed number of members of the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, as  

the case may be, for presenting an address to the President with the prayer  

for  removal  of  a  Judge  then,  the  Speaker  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  

Chairman can either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same and for  

this purpose, he has the discretion to consult any person as he may think fit  

and consider the material which may be made available to him.  Section 3(2)  

lays down that once the notice of motion is admitted, the Speaker or, as the  

case may be, the Chairman has to keep the same pending and constitute a  

Committee for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on  

which the removal of a Judge is sought.  Section 3(3) envisages framing of  

definite  charges  by  the  Committee  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  

investigation.   Section  3(4)  lays  down  that  the  charges  framed  by  the  

Committee together with a statement of the grounds on which each charge is  

based  shall  be  communicated  to  the  Judge,  who  is  then  entitled  to  a  

reasonable opportunity of filing a written statement of defence.  Rule 2(c)  

read with Rule 5 prescribes  the format and procedure to be followed for  

communication  of  the  charges  to  the  Judge.   Section  3(8)  contemplates  

amendment of charges by the Committee.  This exercise can be undertaken  

after  considering  the  written  statement  of  the  Judge.   If  the  charges  are  

amended, the Judge has to be given opportunity to present a fresh written  

25

statement of defence.  Section 3(9) envisages appointment, at the instance of  

the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, of an advocate to conduct  

the case against the Judge.  Section 4(1) gives power to the Committee to  

regulate its own procedure in making the investigation.  The exercise of this  

power  is  subject  to  the  rules,  if  any,  made in  that  behalf  and subject  to  

compliance of  the rules  of natural  justice which means that  the Judge is  

given  reasonable  opportunity  of  cross-examining  witnesses,  adducing  

evidence  and of  being heard in  his  defence.   In  terms of  Section  5,  the  

Committee  has  the  powers  of  a  civil  court  in  respect  of  the  matters  

enumerated therein,  i.e.,  summoning and enforcing the attendance of any  

person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production  

of  documents;  receiving  evidence  on  oath;  issuing  commissions  for  the  

examination of witnesses or documents and such other matters, as may be  

prescribed. Section 4(2) read with Rule 9 envisages completion of inquiry  

within three months from the date of service of charges upon the Judge and  

submission of report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to the Chairman.  

If the Committee is jointly constituted by the Speaker and the Chairman, the  

report is required to be submitted to both of them.  Rule 9(2) empowers the  

Speaker or  the Chairman,  as  the case may be,  to extend the time within  

which  the  Committee  is  required  to  submit  report.   After  the  report  is  

26

submitted to the Speaker or the Chairman, the same is required to be laid  

before the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.     

16. An investigation into the allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity of a  

Judge is an extremely serious matter.  The members of the Lok Sabha or the  

Rajya Sabha are men of wisdom. They would submit a notice of motion for  

presenting an address to the President of India for removal of a Judge only  

when  they  are  prima  facie  satisfied  that  there  exists  tangible  material  

warranting an investigation into the allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity  

of the Judge. When a motion is submitted, the Speaker or the Chairman, as  

the case may be, is not bound to admit the same as a matter of course. He  

may,  after  consulting  such persons  he may think fit  and considering  the  

material,  if any made available to him, take decision on the admission of  

motion. In a given case, he may refuse to admit the motion.  However, if the  

motion is admitted, the statute requires that the Speaker or the Chairman, as  

the case may be, shall keep the same pending and constitute a Committee  

consisting  of  one from among the Chief  Justice  and other  Judges of  the  

Supreme Court, one from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts and a  

distinguished jurist for making an investigation into the grounds on which  

the removal of a Judge is sought.

27

17. Since  the  members  of  the  Committee  are  well  versed  in  law  and  

procedure,  the  legislature  has  designedly  given  substantial  degree  of  

freedom to  the  Committee  to  regulate  its  own  procedure  in  making  the  

investigation subject, of course, to the rules, if any, made in that behalf.  A  

conjoint reading of Section 3(4), (8) and second part of Section 4 makes it  

clear  that  while  making  the  investigation,  the  Committee  has  to  act  in  

consonance with the rules of natural justice.  The Committee is required to  

communicate  the  charges  framed  under  Section  3(3)  together  with  a  

statement of the grounds on which the charges are based to the Judge, give  

reasonable opportunity to him to present a written statement of defence, to  

cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges, to produce  

evidence and to be heard in his defence. There is nothing in the Act or the  

Rules, which inhibits the Committee from making preliminary inquiry for  

the purpose of  prima facie satisfying itself that the allegation contained in  

the notice of motion warrants framing of one or more charges against the  

Judge.  The use of the expression “definite charges” in Section 3(3) gives a  

clear indication that before framing the charges, the Committee must apply  

mind  to  the  allegations  contained  in  the  notice  of  motion  and  the  

accompanying material for the purpose of forming an opinion that a case is  

made out  for  framing charge.   The statute  does not  contemplate  that  the  

Committee should frame charges against the Judge with reference to all the  

28

allegations  enumerated  in  the  notice  of  motion  or  the  accompanying  

statement without even prima facie looking into the nature of allegations and  

satisfying itself that there is justification for framing the particular charges.  

It will be naïve to contend that the Committee has no discretion in the matter  

of  framing  charges.   Rather,  the  Committee  is  duty  bound  to  carefully  

scrutinise the material forming part of the notice of motion and then frame  

definite charges.  The Committee can also receive other material which may  

support or contradict the allegations enumerated in the notice of motion. In  

an appropriate case, the Committee can require any person including the one  

who may have supplied material to the members of the Lok Sabha or the  

Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, to give clarification on any particular point  

or make available authentic copies of the documents.  The Committee can  

also call upon such person to file affidavit or make a statement and summon  

him at the stage of investigation so that the Judge may get an opportunity to  

cross-examine him.  In our view, Shri U.U. Lalit is right in his submission  

that  the  investigation  contemplated  under  Section  3  is  a  participatory  

investigation in which the Judge against whom charges are framed is entitled  

to full opportunity to defend himself and there is no bar against making of  

preliminary inquiry by the Committee as a prelude to the framing of definite  

charges under Section 3(3).   

29

18. As a corollary to the above discussion, we hold that the procedure  

adopted by the Committee  cannot  be faulted  on the  ground that  it  made  

preliminary inquiry before framing charges against the petitioner and relied  

upon the material received from various sources and recorded statement of  

some persons.   If we were to accept the submission of Shri Patil that before  

framing definite charges, the Committee cannot make preliminary inquiry,  

then it would have been obliged to frame charges with reference to all the  

allegations  including  those  relating  to  the  judicial  orders  passed  by  the  

petitioner and administrative power exercised by him in the capacity of the  

Chief Justice and this could easily be construed as a direct encroachment  

upon the independence of the judiciary.   

19. Although, reference to Section 3(9) of the Act in the order passed by  

the Central Government for appointment of Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate  

to  assist  the  Committee  appears  to  be  wholly  unnecessary  because  that  

section contemplates appointment of an advocate to conduct the case against  

the Judge, if the Central Government is ordained to do so by the Speaker or  

the Chairman, or both, as the case may be,  this flaw in the order is not fatal  

to the proceedings held so far because in exercise of the power vested in it to  

regulate its procedure the Committee could suo motu seek assistance of an  

advocate.   The Committee constituted under Section 3(2) consists  of one  

30

person  chosen  from  among  the  Chief  Justice  and  other  Judges  of  the  

Supreme Court, one from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts and  

one distinguished jurist.  In the very nature of their functioning, the Chief  

Justice or the Judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High  

Court cannot on their own make investigation and assume the role of the  

prosecutor.   The same is  true of  the  distinguished jurist  appointed under  

Section  3(2)(c).   They  would  always  need  assistance  of  a  person  who  

possesses a legally trained mind.  That person has to assist the Committee in  

various matters including recording of evidence.  The Judge against whom  

the investigation is made is entitled to seek assistance of an advocate and  

there  is  no  likelihood  of  any  prejudice  being  suffered  by  him  if  the  

Committee seeks assistance of an advocate for effectively discharging the  

functions entrusted to it under the Act.  Therefore, we do not think that the  

petitioner is entitled to seek annulment of the proceedings of the Committee  

on the ground that the Central  Government had wrongly invoked Section  

3(9)  for  appointing  Shri  U.U.  Lalit,  Senior  Advocate  to  assist  the  

Committee.               

20. Before proceeding further, we may consider it appropriate to deal with  

an  ancillary  submission  made  by  Shri  Basava  Prabhu  S.  Patil,  who was  

supported by Shri A. Sharan, senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the  

31

petitioner in Writ Petition No.217 of 2011 that the opinion expressed by K.  

Ramaswamy, J. in his dissenting judgment in Krishna Swamy’s case should  

be  treated  as  the  law  declared  by  this  Court  because  majority  of  the  

Constitution Bench did not deal with the questions formulated in order dated  

February  27,  1992  passed  by  the  3-Judge  Bench.   In  this  context,  it  is  

apposite  to  note  that  majority  of  the  Constitution  Bench  had  expressly  

disagreed with the exposition of law made by K. Ramaswamy, J.  This is  

evinced from paragraph 27 of the judgment, which is extracted below:

“27. We add that on a reconsideration of the matter in the light  of the exposition of law made by Brother K. Ramaswamy in his  separate  opinion  circulated  to  us,  we  regret  our  inability  to  concur with him in the area of his disagreement. On the points  decided by us, leaving open the points which do not arise at this  stage  for  our  consideration  for  the  reasons  we  have  given,  preferring to follow the salutary practice of not deciding any  question, much less a constitutional one, unless it is necessary  to  do  so,  we  would  prefer  to  reserve  our  opinion  on  the  remaining questions for the occasion, if any, in the future when  they arise for decision.”

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the  

learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

21. We shall now take up the third question.  According to Mr. Basava  

Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, 4 of the 14 charges  

32

framed  by  the  Committee,  i.e.,  charge  Nos.  3,  5,  13  and  14,  which  are  

extracted below are beyond the scope of the allegations enumerated in the  

notice of motion:

“CHARGE NO.3

(RECEIVING OF GIFTS AND ADVANCES  UNILATERALLY ON A REGULAR BASIS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, further charge against you is that  after your elevation as a Judge of the High Court you, your wife  and  daughters  and  mother-in-law  have  been  recipients  of  advances  and  gifts  both  in  the  form of  money  and  valuable  property in a regular way.  The flow of these gifts and advances  that regularly come to you, your wife, daughters and mother in  law, seemingly from certain relatives, friends and associates is  completely one sided and unilateral.  There is hardly, if any at  all,  gift  or  advance  made  by  you  in  favour  of  any  of  your  donors.  It may also be stated that practically in all cases, there  is  an  apparent  connection  between  the  gifts  and  advances  coming to you, your wife, daughters and your mother in law  and acquisition of valuable and expensive property by you and  your  family  members  or  any  major  expenses  undertaken  by  you, your wife or daughters.

In  charge No.1  it  is  stated  that  these  gifts  and advances  are  nothing  but  your  income  from  undisclosed  sources.   Even  otherwise, the receipt of large sums and valuable properties as  gifts on a regular basis and completely unilaterally is a gross  abuse of the constitutional office held by you and amounts to  judicial misdemeanour and misbehaviour.  (Details of gifts and  advances are given in the Ground to this Charge.)

33

CHARGE NO.5

(TAKING HORTICULTURE LOANS ON FALSE  GROUNDS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, further charge against you is  that agricultural loans were taken from Allahabad Bank, George  Tower  Branch,  Chennai  by  you  and  your  wife  Dr.  (Mrs.)  Vinodhini Dinakaran and further at your instance and for your  benefit also in the names of the four bogus companies, namely,  M/s Dear Lands India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Canaan Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,  M/s Amudham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Amirtham Gardens  Pvt. Ltd.  The professed purpose of the loans was to develop  horticulture at  the Kaverirajapuram lands but actually neither  the ostensible applicants (the four companies) nor the professed  purpose was true and correctly stated.  The object and purpose  of the loan was first to launder the money derived from your  undisclosed  and  illegitimate  sources  (see  charge  no.1)  and  second to misappropriate the amount of subsidy granted by the  National Horticulture Board to the extent of 20% of the eligible  project cost that came as part of the scheme of the loan.  The  loans were obtained by giving incorrect and false information  on a number of issues on the basis of which the bank would  grant  loan  besides  misrepresenting  the  very  purpose  of  the  loans.  The records show that even though the falsehood of the  statements  and  declarations  made  in  the  loan  applications  became  evident  at  an  early  stage,  nevertheless  the  bank  authorities proceeded to grant the loans, apparently under the  undue influence exercised by you by misusing your position as  a judge of the Madras High Court.

The loans were not taken for development or promotion  of horticulture at the Kaverirajapuram lands is evident from the  fact that in all cases repayment of the loans were largely made  within a period of four to eight months from the grant of the  loans even though under the scheme the repayment would start  from the fourth year and would be over by the end of the eighth  year.   Even though the subsidy by  the  National  Horticulture  Board would constitute last instalment for the repayment of the  loan, the amounts of subsidy were released within eight months  

34

and long before the last instalments for the repayment of the  loans were due.

From the records it is evident that the procurement of the loans  did not constitute an honest and bona fide transaction but the  loans  were  taken,  at  your  instance  and  for  your  benefit  for  undisclosed and illegal purposes.  The procurement of the bank  loans was thus an act of gross misconduct and abuse of your  position as a judge of the High Court.

CHARGE NO.13

(OMMISSION TO FILE WEALTH TAX RETURNS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran further charge against you is that  you  in  your  own  individual  capacity  and  as  the  de  facto  beneficiary of the assets created in the hands of the benamidars  and  your  wife  (See  Charge  Nos.1  &  2)  despite  being  in  possession of  assets  (assets  in the  nature of  huge balance of  cash in  hand,  urban land,  and house  properties)  and deemed  assets,  failed to  file  Wealth  Tax returns  and pay appropriate  Wealth  tax  in  respect  of  such  assets,  which  were  clearly  exigible  to  Wealth  Tax,  such  failure  to  heed  a  statutory  requirement under the law being an omission unbecoming your  status  of  a  high  constitutional  authority  and  amounts  to  misconduct.

CHARGE NO.14

(NON PAYMENT OF BILLS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran further charge against you is  that you did not pay the bills of Madras Race Club for booking  11 rooms and for electricity and illumination charges for the  wedding  reception  of  your  daughter  Amudhaporkodi  on  20.12.2008.  The charge is that though the bookings were made  by Mr. Kaliya Perumal a member of the club, it was for the use  and  occupation  by  your  instance  for  your  guests/friends  etc.  And hence, it is you who is liable for making payment to the  

35

club.  The club bills remained unpaid at least till October, 2010.  Non payment of these bills despite considerable efflux of time  is unbecoming of a judge and amounts to misbehaviour on your  part.”    

22. Although, the language of charges No.3, 5 and 13 and the grounds  

forming part  of  these  charges  are  not  exactly  identical  to  the  allegations  

contained  in  the  notice  of  motion,  but  if  the  same  are  read  with  the  

explanatory note, it becomes clear that all these charges are founded on the  

details contained in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of the explanatory note.  However,  

we do not consider it proper to discuss in detail the substance of the charges  

framed against the petitioner because the investigation being made by the  

Committee is at a preliminary stage and any observation by this Court may  

prejudice  the  cause  of  the  petitioner.   At  the  same  time,  we  have  no  

hesitation in holding that by framing charges No.3, 5 and 13, the Committee  

did not traverse beyond the scope of the allegations.

23. No doubt, charge No.14 does not have direct traces in the allegations  

contained in the notice of motion and the explanatory note, but this minor  

deviation does not warrant quashing of all the charges and it will be open to  

the petitioner to contend before the Committee that charge No.14 should be  

36

ignored because the same is not founded on the allegations contained in the  

notice of motion or the explanatory note.

24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.  

…..…..…….………………….…J.        [G.S. Singhvi]

…..…..……..…..………………..J.                          [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad]

New Delhi August 26, 2011.

37