T. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CHARI ETC.versusHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.

         T. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA CHARI ETC.                                      A
                        v.
  HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.

                              MAY 9, 1996

[J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .JJ.]                      B

       Se1vice Law-Andhra Pradesh Civil Se1vices (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1963-Rules 11(1), 21(2)-Disciplinmy proceedings in-
itiated againit Distlict Munsif-lmposition of punishment of removal-Held,
the order has to be made by the Govemor on the recommendations of the         c
High Cowt-Direct order issued by High Cowt not valid-Constitution of
India, A1t. 235.

      The Appellant joined the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service as
District Munsif and alter confirmation in the said post, he was temporarily
promoted as a Subordinate Judge in 1980. During the tenure as a District      D
Munsif in 1976, a preliminary enquiry was made into an allegation of
misconduct and the appellant was arrested. A departmental enquiry was
also initiated against him. Since the State Government did not give sanc-
tion, the Appellant was not prosecuted in the criminal court. In the
departmental enquiry held by Sessions Judge, the charge of misconduct         E
was found proved and the punishment of removal from service was recom-
mended. The High Court accepted the findings and itself made an order
removing the appellant from service.

      The Appellant challenged the order of removal by filing an appeal
before the Governor under Rule 21 (2) of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules      F
1963 and the appeal was allowed by the Governor on the ground that the
High Court was not the competent authority to order the dismissal or
removal from sen>"ice of the Subordinate Judicial officer. The Governor set
aside the order of removal, granting the Appellant all consequential
benefits.
                                                                              G
      The Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing
the order of the Governor. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single
Judge of the High Court. The Respondent filed a Writ Appeal along with
a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 21 (2) of A.P. Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter mentioned as Rules), which H
                                   595
    596                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R .
                                           •
A provides an appeal from an order passed by the High Court to the
    Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Full Bench of the High Court, upheld
    the contentions of the Respondent and allowed both the writ Appeal and
    writ petition. The Full Bench of the High Court held that (1) The order of
    removal from service could be made by the High Court itself, (2) that the
B   permission for appeal against the order of the High Court to the Governor
    was invalid, (3) that the Governor could not entertain any appeal under
    Rule 21(2) of the Rules against any order made by the High Court in its
    disciplinary jurisdiction (4) that in case of persons appointed or promoted
    to be District Judges or the District Munsiffs appointed directly or by
    transfer by the Governor, if the High Court exercising disciplinary control
C   over them recommends to the Governor to impose on the1n the major
    penalty of disnlissal or removal or reduction in rank, such a recommen-
    dation is binding on the Governor by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitu-
    tion, (5) that, Rule 11(1) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 is
    ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution in so far as it denies lo the High
D   Court the authority to impose punishments, both major and minor,
    regarded as necessary and proper in disciplinary enquiries, (6) that there
    is no right of appeal under Rule 21(2) of the Rules, to the Governor against
    the order of the High court passed in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdic-
    tion, and (7) that Rule 21(2) must be read dowo to mean that the right of
    appeal saved under Article 235 of the Constitution is available only in
E   respect of matters not relating to the disciplinary control vested in the
    High Court over members of the Subordinate Judicial Service.

          On appeal, by the Appellant, this Court

          HELD: I. The order of removal from service of a person holding the
F   substantive rank of District Munsif has to be made only by the Governor,
    even though the Governor must act in accordance with the recommenda-
    tion of the High court which is binding on the Governor. This is the true
    import of Article 235. [601-G-H]

G          B.S. Yadav and Othe1'.I· Etc. v. State of Haryana & Others Etc., [1981]
    1, SCR 1024 and Chief Justice of A.P. & Othe10· v. L. VA. Dixitulu and Othm·
    Etc., [1979] 2 SCC 34, referred to.

        2. The order of removal from service had to be made by the Governor
  and not by the High Court itself. The recommendation of the High Court
H for removal from service after the charges of misconduct were found
                      T.L.N. CHARI v. H.C. OF AP.                      597

proved in the disciplinary inquiry, was binding on the Governor who had       A
to issue the order of removal in accordance with the recommendation
made by the High court. (602-C-D]

      3. The decision of High Court on the validity of Rule 11(1) of the
A.P. (classification, control and Appeal), Rules is set aside. There is no
necessity to pronounce any concluded opinion on the validity of Rule 11(1)    B
and that question is left out for decision in an appropriate case. (605-C]

       4. There is no need to read down Rule 21(2) in the manner in which
it has been dune by the High Court. Rule 21 (2) can be interpreted in
conformity "ith Art. 235 without reading any limitation into it. The second
part of Art. 235 enables the framing of a rule conferring right of appeal.
                                                                              c
However, since the appeal must be decided by the Governor in conformity
"ith the opinion of the High Court, the appeal must be forwarded by the
(;;Jvernor tu the High Court. The remedy is therefore, in appeal, a review
or reconsideration by the High Court. The opinion of the High Court on
such reconsideration will be binding on the Governor. The appeal is to be     D
decided accordingly. (605-E-G]

      5. The action of the High Court against the appellants who held the
substantive rank of District Munsif, is to be treated as the recummenda-
tiun of the High Court to the Governor for their removal from service. In
view of the control over them vested in the High court by virtue of Article   E
235 of the constitution, the Governor is bound, in each case, to act in
accordance with the recommendation of the High Court and each of them
has to be removed from service for the misconduct found proved by the
High Court against them. (606-F-G]
                                                                              F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2165 of
1989 etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.88 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 130 of 1988.
                                                                              G
      H.S. Guru Raja Rao, Subodh Markandeya, for the Appellant in C.A.
No. 2165/89, Respondent in C.A. No. 2166/67/89 T.V. Ratnam for the
Petitioner in W.P. No. 331/94.

      Ms. K. Amreshwari, and G. Prabhakar for the Appellant in C.A. No.
2166-67/89.                                                                   H
    598                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            P. Krishna Rao, for K. R. Nagaraja, for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
    60/95.

             K. Ram Kumar, T.V.S.N. Chari (NP) for the Respondents.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
B
             J.S. VERMA, J. All these appeals are against the same judgment.

           The appellant - T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari was selected for the
    Andhra Pradesh Slate Judicial Service and appointed as District .\1unsiff
    on 21.1.1974 by the (}ovcrnor. He was confirmed as District Munsiff on
c   25.5.1979. He was then promoted temporarily to act as subordinate Judge
    on 211.2.1980. A preliminary enquiry was made into an allegation of mis-
    conduct, which had led lo the appellant's arrest by the police on 26.9.1976,
    in \Vhich a prima facie case \Vas ma<lc out against the appellant. Accord-
    ingly, a regular departmental enquiry v..•as initiated on the charges of
D   misconduct. The allegation against the appellant was that when he was
    posted as '\1unsiff \1agislrate, Hyderabad (East), he had forced a woman,
    who \Vas a litigant before hiin, to have an illicit relationship \Vith him; and
    the appellant was arrested on the night of 26.9.1976 on the complaint of
    that woman when the police found him with her in a hotel. A criminal case
    was registered against the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention
E   of Corruption Act and Section 509, l.P.C. and sanction of the State
    Government \Vas sought for his prosecution. Hov»ever, the Government did
    not accord the sanction and took the decision of not prosecuting him
    without even consulting the High Court. In the departmental enquiry held
    by the Session Judge, who was appointed as the enquiry officer, the charge
F   of misconduct was found proved and the punishment of removal from
    service was recommended. The High Court accepted the findings and itself
    made an order dated 20.1.1982 removing the appellant from service.

        Apparently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court took the view that the
  order of removal from service could be made by the High Court itself and
G it was nut necessary for the High Court to make its recon1n1en<lations to
  the Governor for issuing the order imposing the penalty of r,,moval from
  service. The appellant challenged the order dated 20.1.1982 made by the
  High Court removing him from service, in an appeal to the Governor under
  Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classifical;on, Control
H and Appeal) Rules, 1963. By G.O.Ms. No. 534 dated 14.9.1984 of the
              T.L.N. CHARI v. H.C OF AP. [J.S. VERMA, J.]                599

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Lhat appeal was                  A
allowed by Lhe Governor on the ground lhat the High Court is not the
competent authority to order the dismissal or removal from service of the
Subordinate Judicial Officer. The order also granted all consequential
benefits to the appellant.

       The Andhra Pradesh High Court filed Writ Petition No. 14588/1984
                                                                                B
in the High Court for quashing G.0. Ms. No. 534 dated 14.9.1984, by which
the Governor has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated
20.1.1982, issued by the High Court, removing the appellant from service.
This writ petition was dismissed on 16.10.1988 by a learned single Judge of
the High Court. Writ Appeal No. 130 of 1980 was then filed by the High          c
 Court against the dismissal of the writ petition, before a Division Bench of
 the High Court. In addition, Writ Petition No. 12691 of 1986 was also filed
by the High Court challenging the validity of Rule 21(2) of the Andhra
 Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963,
which provides an appeal from an order passed by the High Court to the          D
 Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The writ appeal and the said writ petition
were both referred for decision to a Full Bench of the High Court, which
allowed both of them by the impugned judgment dated 25.8.1988. The Full
Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has upheld the
contentions of the High Court that the order of removal from service could
be made by the High Court itself; and that the provision for appeal against     E
 the High Court's order to the Governor is invalid. A further direction was
issued therein that the Governor could not entertain any appeal preferred
under Rule 21 (2) against any order made by the High Court in the exercise
of its disciplinary jurisdiction over the members of the subordinate
judiciary.
                                                                                F
       C.A. No. 2165/1989 is by T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari, the concerned
judicial officer, against the judgment of the Full Bench. C.A. Nos. 2166-
2167/1989 are by the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the same
judgment of the Full Bench.
                                                                                G
     Writ Petition (C) No. 331/1994 is by K. David Wilson, another
member of the subordinate judiciary in Andhra Pradesh who was removed
from service by an order dated 01.12.1993, issued by the High Court after
a departmental enquiry into the charges of misconduct against him. He too
was a District M unsiff in the Andhra Pradesh .T udicial Service, who was H
    600                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A temporarily promoted as a subordinate Judge, when the order for his
    removal from service was made by the High Court In view of lhe above
    Full Bench decision of the High Court, the petitioner-K. David Wilson has
    challenged the order of removal from service directly by this petition filed
    umier Article 32 of the Constitution. This writ pelition also is being decided
    by this com1non judgn1ent since it involve~ a co1nmon question of la\V for
B
    decision namely, the competence of the High Court lo ilsclf issue the order
    uf removal from service.

         Before we proceed to consider the questions \vhich arise for decision,
    the material conclusions in the impugned judgment of the Full Bench may
C   be summarised thus :

            (1) Arlide 235 of the Constitution of India vests the control over
            District Courts and the courts subordinate thereto, in the High
            _Court. The control includes the disciplinary conlrol over the con-
            duct and discipline of the members of the subordinate judiciary.
D
             (2) In the State of Andhra Pradesh Except for the posts of District
            .J udg~s filled by direct recruitn1ent or by pron1otiun and the posts
            of District Munsiffs filled by direct recruitment or by transfer for
            which the appointments have to be made by the Governor of the
            Stale of Andhra Pradesh, it is the High Court which is the appoint-
E
            ing authority to the posts of .Judicial Second Class Magistrates, to
            the posts of District Munsiffs by promotion from the c:alegory of
            Judicial Second Class Magistrates and to the posts of Subordinate
            Judges by promotion from the cadre of District Munsiffs.

F            (3) In the case of persons appointed or promoted lo be District
             Judges or the District Munsiffs appointed directly or by transfer
             by the Governor, if the High Court exercising disciplinary control
             over them recommends to the Governor to impose on them the
             major penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, such
             a recommendation is binding on the Governor by virtue of Article
G            235 of the Constitution.

             ( 4) Rule 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classifica-
             tion, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 is ultra vires Article 235 of
             the Constitution in so far as it denies to the High Court the
H            authority to impose punishments, both major and minor, regarded
              T.LN. CHARI v. H.C. OF AP. [J.S. VERMA, J.)                601

        as necessary and proper in disciplinary enquiries held against the      A
        subordinate judicial officers who have been holding the posts to
        which they have been either initially appointed or promoted by the
        High Court.

        (5) There is nu right of appeal under Rule 21(2) of the Andhra
        Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
                                                                                B
        1963 to the Governor against the order of the High Court passed
        in exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction against all the members
        of the subordinate judiciary including District Judges. Rule 21(2)
        must be read down to mean that the right of appeal saved under
        Article 235 of the Constitution is available only in respect of         C
        matters not relating to the disciplinary control vested in the High
        Court over members of the Subordinate Judicial Service.

      The first question is whether the orders of removal from service
issued by the High Court itself against T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari and          D
K. David Wilson are validly made. Admittedly, both these subordinate
judicial officers were directly recruited as District Munsiffs and had been
confirmed on that post. At the time of removal from service, the substantive
rank held by each of them was of a District Munsiff and they were
promoted temporarily as Subordinate Judges. Since their lien was in their
substantive rank as District Munsiff, the orders of removal from service        E
had the effect of terminating their service as District Munsiff. The validity
of the orders of removal from service made by the High Court has to be
adjudged on these facts.

       One of the conclusions rightly reached by the High Court is that the     F
appointing autho~ity for a directly recruited District Munsiff is the Gover-
nor. Both these persons were directly recruited as District Munsiffs and it
was this substantive rank held by them when they were removed from
service. The High Court has further correctly concluded that the major
penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank can be imposed on a
directly appointed District Munsiff only on the recommendation of the           G
High Court which is binding on the Governor. The result is that the order
of removal from service of a person holding the substantive rank of District
M unsiff has to be made only by the Governor, even though the Governor
must act in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court which
is binding on the Governor. This the true import of Article 235 of the          H
    6112                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Cunstitution which vests the control over the District Courts and the courts
    suburdim1le thereto in the High Court. This is well settled hy a Catena of
    decisions uf this Court. It is sufficient to refer the decisions in B.S. Yadav
    and Othei,· Etc. v. State of Hmya11a and Othm·. Etc., [1981[ 1S.C.R.1024
    and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Ochers v. L. VA. Dixintlu and
    Others Etc., J 1979J 2 SCC 34.
B
          Applying the settled legal principle to the undisputed facts in the
    case of both these subordinate judicial officers who held the substantive
    rank of directly appointed District Munsiff at the time of issuance of the
    order of removal from service by the High Court itself, it is plain that the
C   order of removal from service in the case of each of them had to be made
    by the Governor and nut by the High Court itself. It is equally plain that
    the recommendation of the High Court for their removal from service after
    the charges of misconduct were found proved in the disciplinary inquiry,
    was binding on the .Governor who had to issue the order of removal in
D   accordance 1vith the recommendation made by the High Court. Unfor-
    tunately the High Court, in spite of the settled legal position, did not adopt
    the correct procedure for issu<-1nce of the order of removal fron1 service of
    these two judicial officers. The High Court, instead of sending its recom-
    mendation to the Governor for issuing the order of removal from service,
    which would be binding on the Governor, proceeded to issue the order of
E   removal from service itself. The State Government also failed to appreciate
    the correct legal position and to make amends by issuing the order of
    removal in the name of Governor treating the action of the High Court as
    its recommendation for removal from service. Such an action would have
    corrected the formal defect in the order of removal. Another opportunity
    to correct the mistake in this manner came when the appeal was filed under
F
    Rule 21(2) by the judicial officer. However, that too was missed. It is this
    error which has enabled these judicial officers to challenge the orders of
    removal from service.

           The next question is of the effect of GO Ms No. 534 dated 14.9.1984
G issued by the Governor allowing the appeal under Rule 21(2) filed by T.
     Lakshmi Narasimha Chari. In view of the conclusion reached by us on the
     first point that the order of removal issued by the High Court itself was
     not validly made since it had to be issued by the Governor on the recom-
     mendation made by the High Court, this question has to be viewed in this
H    background. fn the present case, the practical effect of the answer to this
              T.L.N. CHARI v. H.C. OF AP. [J.S. VERMA, J.]               603

question may have relevance only for moulding the relief in view of the         A
conclusion reached on the above first question.

       It would be appropriate at this stage to first consider the need for
examining the correctness of the High Court's conclusion that Rule 11(1)
is ultra vires Article 235 and Rule 21(2) has to be read down to confer only
a limited right of appeal to the Governor.                                      B
      The relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Classification, Con-
trol and Appeal) Rules, 1963 may be referred. Admittedly, these rules are
applicable to the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service and the
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service which are item 32 and 33 in
Schedule I to the Rules which has to be read with Rule 6 which says that
                                                                                c
the State Services shall consist of services included in Schedule I to these
Rules. Relevant provisions of the Rules are as under :

                           "PART III - CONTROL
                                                                                D
            8. (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient
        f!'ason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a member
        of a Civil Service or holder of Civil post specified in Rule 2,
        nainely :

               (G.O. Ms. No. 691, Ser. C, dated 4.11.1980)                      E
            (i) Censure;

           ·(ii) Fine;

            (iii) Withholding of increments or promotion;
                                                                                F
           (iv) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower
        post not being lower than that to which he was directly recruited.

            (v) Recovery from pay of the whole or any part of the pecuniary
        loss caused to the State Government or the Central Government           G
      · or to a Iocaf authority.

            (iv} Compulsory retirement, otherwise than under sub-rules (2)
         and (2A) or rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension
         Rules, 1961, or under rules 292, 293 and 293- A of the Hyderabad
       : Civil Services Rules, or under the Andhra Pradesh Government H
    604                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         Servants Premature Retirement Rules, 1975, or under Article 465
          (2) or under Note l to Article 465-A of the Civil Services Regula-
          tiuns or in the case of members of the Civil Service of t:ic erstwhile
          Hyderabad Government, compulsory retirement before comple-
          tion of 30 years or 25 years of qualifying service according as the
          member of the service is governed by the Revised Pension Rules,
B         1951 or by the rules in force before that date, as the case may be
          (hereinaller referred to as compulsory retirement);

             (vii) Removal from the civil service of the State;

             (viii) Dismissal from the civil service of the State;
c
             (ix) Suspension, where a person has already been suspended
          under rule 13 (1), to the extent considered necessary.

             xxx                           xxx                          xxx"
D
             "11. (1) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh may impose on
          members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service, any of the
          Penalties specified in items (i) (iii), (iv) and (v) of rule 8:

             Provided that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh may impose
E         on the Judicial Second Class Magistrates any of the penalties
          specified in rule 8.

             xxx                           xxx                          xxx"

                           "PART IV - APPEALS
F
             20. Every person who is a member of any of the service
          specified in rule 5, shall be entitled to appeal, as hereinafter
          provided, from an order passed by an authority -

              (a) imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in rule 8
G
          or rule 9;

             xxx                           xxx                          xxx

             21. (2) An appeal from an order passed by the High Court shall
H         lie to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh.




                                                                                   •
              T.L.N.CHARI v. H.C. OF A.P. [J.S. VERMA.I.]                 605

        xxx                          xxx                          xxx"           A

      In view of the fact that neither T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari nor K.
David Wilson, determination of whose services has given rise to this
litigation, were initially appointed directly as District Munsiffs by the High
Court, the question of considering the validity of Ruic 11(1) does not arise     B
in this case. It was, therefore, unnecessary for the High Court lo have.
raised that question and then to have considered and decided the same in
the abstract. For the same reason, we consider it unnecessary to pronounce
any concluded opinion on that point and leave that question for decision
in an appropriate case, wherein that question may arise directly. The
decision of the High Court on this point is, therefore, set aside for this       C
reason alone, being unnecessary, leaving the question open for decision in
an appropriate case.

      The only surviving question now is the correctness of the High
Court's decision relating to Rule 21(2) that it has to be read down to confer D
only a limited rigbt of appeal to the Governor in sorri.e cases alone.

      In our opinion Rule 21(2) can be interpreted in conformity with
Article 235 without the requirement of reading any limitation therein as
indicated by the High Court. The second part of Article 235 enables the
framing of such a rule to confer a right of appeal. Such a provision for E
appeal must be construed to mean that the appeal to the Governor against
the order of the High Court provides for reconsideration of the High
Court's. order by the Governor, but in keeping with the requirement of
Article 235 that the power of control over persons belonging to the judicial
service of a State vests in the High Court, and that the appeal must be F
decided by the Governor ordy in accordance with the opinion _of the High
Court. In other words, such an appeal has to be forwarded by the Governor
to the High Court for its opinion, which would enable the High Court to
reconsider its earlier decision and give its opinion to the Governor, in
accordance with which the Governor must decide the appeal. In short, the G
remedy of such an .appeal provided by the rules which have been framed
in consultation with the High Court is in the nature of a provision for
reconsideration or review by the High Court of its earlier decision. The
High Court on reconsideration of the matter has to give its opinion to the
Governor and the Governor must invariably act in accordance with the
opinion so given by the High Court. The Governor has no option to act in H
    606                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A a manner different from that recommended by the High Court. This
    procedure requires reconsideration by the High Court of its earlier opinio"
   and the opinion given by the High Court after reconsideration indicates
    the manner of decision of that appeal. There is thus no erosion in the
    control vested in the High Court over persons belonging to the judicial
    service of a State; and the requirement of an appeal i.e. reconsideration of
B the earlier decision is also satisfied. In this process, any comments by th\'
   Governor on the merits of the case would also receive consideration of the
    High Court before it forms the final opinion and forwards its recommen-
    dation to the Governor for decision of the appeal in accordance with that
    opinion. This is the scheme and requirement of Article 235. We are
C informed that similar provision exists for appeal in the case of persons
    belonging to the judicial service in some other States and the rule is worked
    in the manner indicated. Such a construction of the rule gives effect to the
    provision for appeal consistent with the right of appeal available under the
    second part of Article 235 and is consistent with the vesting of control in
D . the High Court over the subordinate judiciary.

          There is no need to read down Rule 21(2) in the manner in which it
    has been done by the High Court. The High Court's decision overlooks this
    aspect.

E          The question now is of the kind of final order to be made in these
    cases. In the cases of both these officers, namely, T. Lakshmi Narasirnha
    Chari and K. David Wilson, the order of removal made by the High Court
    is set aside for the reasons already given. However, the action of the High
    Court against both these judicial officers who held the substantive rank of
F   District Munsiff, is to be treated as the recommendation of the High Court
    to the Governor for their removal from service. In view of the control over
    them vested in the High Court by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution,
    the Governor is bound, in each case, to act in accordance with the recom-
  mendation of the High Court and each of them has to be removed from
  service for the misconduct found proved by the High Court against them.
G The Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh is to proceed and make the
  necessary consequential orders in accordance with the recommendation of
  the High Court in each case, in accordance with law. It was submitted by
  learned counsel for T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari that he has attained the
  age of superannuation in the meantime. Any such subsequent event is to
H be brought to the notice of the High Court and it is for the High Court to
               T.L.N. CHARI v. H.C. OF A.P. [J.S. VERMA, J.]             607

consider and decide the effect there of in making any further recommen- A
dation to the Governor. In formulating its recommendation, the High Court
is to keep in view the relevant rules and the decisions relating to this aspect.
No such question arises for consideration by us in this appeal and, there-
fore, we need not deal with this aspect any further. All consequential
actions are to be considered and taken by the High Court in accordance
with law.                                                                        B

       Consequently, these appeals and the writ petition are decided i!1 the
above manner.

V.M.                                      Appeals and Petition disposed of.