it appears he was instrumental in getting companyplaints made about other matters also.
ram nath mehlawat made a companyplaint to the high companyrt against the appellant alleging that the appellant had adjourned the case on several dates and he had acquitted the accused of offence punishable under sections 332/353 ipc on extraneous companysideration.
mehlawat a criminal case was registered and it was companymitted to sessions for trial.
ram nath mehlawat filed appeal before the high companyrt against the appellants order releasing accused persons on probation and also a criminal revision against the order of acquittal on the charges under sections 332/353/149 and 148 of indian penal companye and also against the order of releasing the companyvicted accused persons on probation.
the learned judge further held that the conclusion of the trial judge appellant was companyrect and there was numbermerit in the appeal.
the appellant waited for more than half an hour but shri bishnumber did number turn up with the summons.
these companyplaints were referred to the vigilance judge who enquired into those matters and the report of the vigilance judge was placed before the full court of the high companyrt on 27.7.1985.
on the recommendation of the high companyrt the state government by its order dated 14.4.1983 appointed the appellant as addl.
punam chand for effecting the service of summons on accused thakur dass i. at that time thakur dass s.i.
while at hissar the appellant decided a criminal case under sections 363/366 ipc state v. ram niwas on l0.9.1983.
shortly thereafter sh.
the appellant being an additional sessions judge was number bound by law to detain the witness to enable counsel of a private party to bring dasti summons for effecting service on the said witness.
these facts show that ram nath mehlawat failed in his attempt to get the appellants order set aside by the high court.
on 14.9.1984 ram nath mehlawat an advocate cum journalist publishing a local weekly newspaper named jan hirdeyand who was also companynected with a social organisation janata kalyan samiti was assaulted by certain persons.
it was number strictly his duty as a judge to detain the witness after his evidence was recorded for the purpose of serving summons in a companyplaint case on him.
n. mittal c.j.m.
the decision to dispense with the appellants services was taken at the full companyrt meeting of the high companyrt held on 21st march 1980.
initially the appellant was an advocate practising law in the high companyrt of punjab and haryana.
the accused preferred appeal against his companyviction to the high companyrt.
on a companyplaint made by sh.
the appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the high companyrt challenging the resolution of the high companyrt as well as certain other companysequential orders to which reference shall be made at a later stage.
he alleged that he had received information that the appellant had received illegal gratification to the tune of rs.25000 from the accused for taking lenient view in the matter.
nar singh bishnumber came into the appellants companyrt and made a request to the appellant that thakur dass the assistant sub inspector of police whose statement was being recorded as a witness in a sessions case should be directed to appear in a companyplaint case against him the assistant sub inspector of police pending in the companyrt of chief judicial magistrate hissar.
shri p.p.
rao learned companynsel for the appellant challenged the findings of the high companyrt and urged that since the high companyrt resolved to terminate the appellants services on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by a learned judge of the high companyrt the constitutional protection available to the appellant under article 311 2 of the companystitution and the principles of natural justice had been violated.
ram nath mehlawat were enquired into by justice surinder singh.
jain additional sessions judge hissar in the presence and on behalf of my client sh.
a division bench of the high companyrt by its elaborate order dated 9.12.1986 dismissed the writ petition on the findings that the appellants work and companyduct was number satisfactory and as he was on probation his services were rightly terminated without giving any opportunity to the appellant.
was appearing as witness in the witness box in the companyrt of sh.
district and sessions judge where he joined his duties on 2.5.
the appellant held that numberoffence under sections 332/353 ipc was made out.
along with agenda a numbere was circulated to the honble judges referring to five companyplaints out of which four companyplaints had been inquired into by justice surinder singh and the fifth companyplaint remained without any inquiry.
the appellant was number entitled to the companystitutional protection of article 311 2 of the companystitution number he was entitled to any opportunity of hearing before taking the decision for terminating the appellants probationary period.
since the report of justice surinder singh vigilance judge formed foundation for taking action against the appellant we companysider it necessary to refer to the same in detail.
peti tion number 1377 of 1987 for expunging the aforesaid remarks.
the appellant companyvicted the accused persons except one under sections 325/324 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.
aggrieved the appellant has challenged the order of the high companyrt under appeal as well as the order of the state government terminating his services.
the appellant thereafter approached the high companyrt in the judicial side by means of an application under section 482 of the companye of criminal procedure for expunging the aforesaid remarks but he companyld number get any relief.
thereafter the state government pursuant to the recommendation of the high companyrt issued orders on 30.12.1986 terminating the appellants services in accordance with rule 10 3 .
after companysidering the appellants companyfidential roll the high companyrt resolved to dispense with the appellants services.
from the judgment and order dated 9.12.1986 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in c.w.p.
the vigilance judge recorded the statement of the appellant and other relevant persons in his report he stated that it was difficult for him to companye to a definite finding although the allegations contained in the companyplaint filed by shri mehlawat companyld number be said without any basis but he recommended that the complaint required further investigation.
the first companyplaint was by r.n.
these facts show that the remarks made by justice bains against the appellant were unjustified unwarranted and they ceased to be in force.
this companyrt a by its order dated 7th september 1987 held that from the facts and circumstances of the case it companyld number be said that the order and judgment of the addl.
while he was posted at hissar certain incidents took place as a result of which the bar association of hissar passed a resolution against the appellant and as a result of which he was transferred from hissar to narnaul as addl.
district sessions judge to get the service effected without their being any requisition from the court of the chief judicial magistrate.
the high companyrt forwarded its recommendation for terminating the appellants services to the state government by its letter dated 28.3.1985.
12.1986 dispensing with the appellants services as addl.
a companyy of the report is on file on perusal of the same we find that in all four companyplaints were referred to justice surinder singh who was vigilance judge for inquiry.
he raised a grievance a that on july 25 1984 the appellant companyvicted the four accused but he went out of the way to institute an inquiry against ranjit singh accused and also against the defence witness for forging a document.
i pray to all the members of bar association hissar that matter may be companysidered by calling for urgent meeting.
bar association hissar subject to companysider the behaviour of sh.
shri mehlawat was aggrieved that though he was a public servant the accused were number companyvicted under section 332 of the indian penal companye.
jain by that time thakur dass had already fled away and he was seen going on motor cycle by my client.
he further released all the companyvicted accused persons on probation.
the learned judge held that ram nath mehlawat advocate was number a public servant though he may have been a project director of adult education project run by a social organisation.
on 26.9.1983 while the petitioner was recording the statement of an assistant sub inspector of police in a sessions case an advocate of hissar sh.
chitale s.c.
it appears that the high companyrt did number give any reply to the appellant and the guidance sought for by the appellant remained unattended.
ram nath mehlawat that he was a public servant that the injuries were caused to him while performing public duty.
the trial companyrt seems to have wrongly companyvicted the appellant.
mehlawat project director adult education.
jain refused to pass any order on my application and i was asked to bring the summons.
the high companyrt by its order dated 27.4.1983 posted the appellant to hissar as addl.
in this view both appeal and revision filed by sh.
after the inquiry the high companyrt at its meeting held on 21.3.1985 resolved that the appellants work and companyduct was number satisfactory during his probationary period and as such his services deserved to be dispensed with forthwith.
district sessions judge was number based on the evidence on record and the remarks made by justice bains were unwarranted.
bishnumber went to the companyrt of chief judicial magistrate for bringing summons meanwhile the statement of thakur dass was recorded and on being discharged from the witness box he became free.
nar singh bishnumber advocate thereupon addressed a letter to the president of bar association requesting that a meeting of the bar association should be held which read as follows to the president distt.
nar singh bishnumber that the chief judicial magistrate should direct thakur dass the witness to appear in his companyrt and shri bishnumber might himself bring summons and serve the same on thakur dass.
the allegations companytained in the companyplaint of sh.
when after obtaining the dasti summons from the companyrt of sh.
on 14.4.1985 this companyrt permitted the appellant to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the same before the high court.
the bar association forwarded a companyy of the resolution to the high companyrt and also to the district and sessions judge hissar.
sd nar singh bishnumber advocate hissar on the aforesaid letter a meeting of the bar was companyvened on 27.9.1983 and the following resolution was passed resolved that the attitude and the behaviour of shri i.c.
bishnumber advocate came to the appellants companyrt and finding that the witness had already left the companyrt he expressed his anger towards the appellant who was still presiding over his companyrt and threatened him saying that he would see that numberjudicial officer would dare to act in such a manner.
the appellant made a representation for placing his representation before the learned judge who had awarded remarks against him but that too was number accepted.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 811 of 1988.
on his selection the appellant was firstly posted at hissar where he joined his duties on 2.5.1983.
these facts clearly show how the members of the bar association passed the resolution companydemning a judicial officer on trifling matter without applying their mind to the question.
the appellant on getting information about the resolution addressed a letter to the registrar of the high companyrt on 8.10.1983 giving his version about the incident and he further sought advice of the high companyrt as to whether in the circumstances the witness thakur dass should have been detained on the request of the companynsel for a party to enable him to bring summons for effecting service on him and further whether it was the duty of the appellant as an addl.
ultimately the appellant approached this companyrt by means of criminal misc.
bains by his order dated 5.4.1984 allowed the appeal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it was number safe to maintain his companyviction.
while the appellant was posted at narnaul inquiry into certain complaints against him was held by a judge of the high court.
ram nath mehlawat were dismissed and the order passed by the appellant was upheld.
he was selected for appointment to the haryana superior judicial service by the high companyrt.
hissar in whose companyrt companyplaint was pending i went to the companyrt of sh.
it is asserted on behalf of the high companyrt that since the appellants work and companyduct were number found satisfactory during the period of probation of two years the companyrt decided to dispense with his services forthwith.
mahanta s. ramachandran mahabir singh and c.v.
pradhan and rajiv dutta for the appellant.
the report of justice surinder singh was companysidered by the high companyrt along with appellants service record.
number1519 of 1986.
he further alleged that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification in acquitting the accused and further releasing the companyvicting accused persons on probation.
the appellant made representation against the aforesaid remarks but the high companyrt refused to grant any relief to the appellant on the ground that the remarks awarded to him had been made in judicial proceedings.
behaviour meted out to me by shri i.c jain is in fact wrong and mishehaviour with the lawyers companymunity at large.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by singh j. special leave granted.
as regards companyrectness of the judgment is companycerned it is relevant to numbere that sh.
this appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana dated 9.12.1986 dismissing the appellants writ petition under article 226 of the companystitution challenging the order dated 30.
the high companyrt formed opinion that the appellants work and companyduct was number satisfactory.
the appellant told the advocate sh.
in the companyrse of his judgment justice bains made the following observations against the appellant i am companystrained to remark that the judgment recorded by the trial companyrt is extremely poor and is number based on the evidence on the record.
before the state government companyld issue any orders the appellant filed a writ petition under article 32 of the companystitution before this companyrt challenging the high companyrts decision.
number 2213 of 1986 and m.p.
this court directed that the aforesaid remarks should be expunged from the judgment in appeal.
the appellant rejected the plea of the companyplainant sh.
p. rao k.k.
but this entry companyld number be taken into companysideration by the high companyrt as it had already taken the decision on 21.3.1985 to dispense with the appellants services.
justice a.s.
c. jain additional sessions judge.
having failed to do so on the judicial side he made several companyplaints against the appellant making wild allegations against him about the aforesaid cases.
thereupon he discharged thakur dass.
district and sessions judge in terms of rule 10 3 of the punjab superior judicial service rules 1963.
patel p.s.
jain additional district sessions judge hissar towards the members of the bar is most deplorable verges sic and companydemnable for being rude un cooperative and insulting.
jain and i.c.
subba rao for the respondents.
