Legal Services Authorities Act | Executive Chairman Competent To Delegate Disciplinary Powers To DLSA: HP High Court
Mehak Aggarwal
7 Nov 2025 3:45 PM IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority is legally competent to delegate disciplinary powers to the District Legal Services Authority.
It was stated that since proper authorisation took place and no procedural irregularity was found, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were valid.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj held that: “Once the record goes on to show that the Executive Chairman had delegated the power at the district level to the DLSA who is the District Judge and the Chairman as per Section 9 of the Act, no fault as such can be found in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.”
The petitioner, Om Prakash, a Senior Assistant working with the District Legal Services Authority Mandi, challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi.
He contended that since he was appointed by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the District Judge, being only the Chairman of DLSA, had no authority to initiate proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
In response, State Legal Services Authority contended that District Judge, as Chairman of the DLSA under Section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, was competent to act when the Executive Chairman of SLSA had directed such delegation.
The Court observed that as per the record it was clear that the powers were delegated from the Executive Chairman, SLSA, to the DLSA. Thus, the Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition and upheld the validity of the delegation.
Case Name: Om Prakash v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWP No.8622 of 2024
Date of Decision: 27.10.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.L. Soni and Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr.Shriyek Sharda, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondent No.3.