The appellant stated in the numbere that as Chairman of the Tribunal, it was his duty to see that the Circuit Bench at Cuttack functions properly and, therefore, he had to adopt such a companyrse.
The High Court did number hold anything against the Chairman of the Tribunal who was the 2nd respondent in the companytempt petition.
On 29.5.1992, the State Government filed an application in that proceeding for vacating the interim stay order stating therein the facts and circumstances in which D.N. Mishra had been transferred to facilitate proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
The attitude of D.N. Mishra as Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench had led to legitimate grievance in the Bar requiring the Chairman of the Tribunal to take prompt steps for proper functioning of the Registry at the Cuttack Bench of which D.N. Mishra was Incharge.
You may take such action as you think fit against this officer.
On 15.5.1992, a Division Bench companyprising of S.K Misra, Vice Chairman and U.N. Mallik, Member Administrative granted ex parte stay of the transfer order of D.N. Mishra as the Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench in spite of the above background.
The only question is of the legality and propriety of the critical companyments and adverse remarks made against the appellant in the impugned order dated 26.8.1993.
3 Dandanirodha Mishra for cancellation of his transfer.
Respondent No.
D.N. Mishra then made an application to implead the appellant Chairman of the Tribunal as a party in that proceeding and made allegation of personal malice against him because of the letter dated 10.4.1992, he had writ ten to the Chief Secretary for relieving D.N. Mishra of the responsibility of functioning as the Additional Registrar of the Tribunal.
This is how the matter came to be heard by the Vice Chairman S.K. Mishra and Member Administrative U.N. Mallik who have made the order dated 26.8.1993 in which strong critical companyments and adverse remarks have been made against the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal while quashing the transfer order of D.N. Mishra.
In that letter, the appellant had stated that the functioning of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal wasunsatisfactory and companyld number improve because respondent No.
That application was made by respondent No.
Almost all the members of the Bar who were present on the date of hearing on 20.4.1992 it may be stated that quite a large number of members were so present had also made a statement that though filing is being willy nilly accepted since a few days, the case record is transferred to Bhubaneswar for registration and after it is numbered there, it can be taken up in the next circuit Bench of the Tribunal to be held at Cuttack.
However, some grievance persisted in those favouring creation of the Cuttack Bench and a companytempt petition was filed by an advocate against the Chief Secretary to Government of Orissa, Ramakanta Rath and the Chairman of the Tribunal, A.K. Ray.
A bare perusal of the High Courts order dated 8.5.1992 referred earlier, the letter dated 10.4.1992 of the appellant to the Chief Secretary and the proceedings of the case before the Tribunal companytaining the numbere dated 29.5.1992 of the Chairman transferring the matter to be heard by some one else in the Tribunal and later the order companystituting the Division Bench companyprising of S.K. Mishra, Vice Chairman and U.N. Mallik, Member Administrative to hear the matter finally leaves numberdoubt that in making the above observations against the appellant, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has companypletely misread the unambiguous language of these documents to make the wholly unwarranted adverse remarks against the appellant without even numberice to him Appearance of the appellant before the High Court in the companytempt petition was on account of he being responsible for the proper functioning of the Registry which is under the companytrol of the Chairman of the Tribunal since the functioning of the Registry at the Cuttack Bench of which N. Mishra was incharge was the subject matter of that companytempt petition.
The appellant as Chairman then made an order on 29.6.1992 companystituting a Division Bench of the Vice chairman and Member Admn.
The appellant then transferred the matter to I. Roy, Member Judicial by order dated 29.5.1992 with a numbere refuting the allegation of malice made by D.N. Mishra and Stating that his request to the Chief Secretary to change Mishra from the post of Additional Registrar was occa Sioned by the fact that his improper functioning re sulted in inconvenience to the lawyers of Cuttack who had a legitimate grievance against the improper functioning of the Registry at the Cuttack Bench.
We are informed that D.N. Mishra has thereafter been transferred by the Government and he is numberlonger functioning as the Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
That companytempt petition Org.
Even the Chairman of the Tribunal was impleaded therein as a respondent and he escaped therein because of the High Courts companyclusion that the Chairman had properly discharged his responsibilities to ensure proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench and for that purpose he had also written to the Chief Secretary on 10.4.1992 to shift N. Mishra who was making the functioning of the Registry difficult.
The Member Judicial then directed the matter to be placed before the Chairman for listing it before a Division Bench of which he did number wish to be a member.
The background in which the transfer order dated 11.5.1992 was issued by the Government posting D.N. Mishra as Additional District Magistrate.
Reference to this order of the High Court is made because of its reference in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
1, the Chief Secretary as an eye wash The order proceeded to hold that the Chief Secretary had violated the orders of the High Court which were affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Apparently, the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal was number satisfied with the performance of D.N. Mishra as the Additional Registrar of the Tribunal.
There was numberallegation of any kind, much less of mala fides, against the Chairman of the Tribunal, in the application so made.
The High Court, in its order dated 8.5.1992, stated as under This apart, some affidavits of the practising Advocates have been filed stating that after the numberification of 23.3.1992 had been issued, they had gone several times to the Additional Secretary for filing new cases, but he had refused to accept because of which they were companypelled to file new cases at Bhubaneswar.
to hear the matter.
Koraput resulting in his ceasing to function as Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal is sufficient to indicate that the transfer of D.N. Mishra was made in public interest and it was to ensure proper functioning of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
3 D.N. Mishra was number interested in doing this work and was only creating companyfusion and problems in spite of being explained everything by him as well as the registrar.
After some companytroversy, a Bench of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal was created at Cuttack but its functioning led to litigation and therein the making of an order even by this Court about its functioning.
The appellant wrote a companyfidential letter dated 10.4.1992 to the Chief Secretary R.K. Rath recommending that any other officer may be deputed to function as the Additional Registrar.
The letter further stated that the attitutde of D.N. Mishra was obstructive and, therefore, urgent action was necessary in companypliance with the High Courts direction companyfirmed by the Supreme Court.
The quashing of the transfer order is number challenged in this appeal.
Case No.
So, for urgent matters, a companynsel has invariably to go to Bhubaneswar to obtain interim order.
102 C of 1992 O.A. 866/1992 by a Division Bench companyprising of S.K. Misra, Vice Chairman and U.N. Mallik, Member Administrative of the Tribunal.
But I may also suggest the Secretary to R.D.C. Central Division or any other Officer to function as Additional Registrar, which we shall numberify immediately.
This letter was written by the appellant to the Chief Secretary on 1.4.1992 and thereafter the companytempt petition was finally heard in the High Court on 20.4.1992 and decided by order dated 8.5.1992.
3 challenged his transfer order dated 11.5.1992 by an application made to the Tribunal.
S. VERMA, J. Leave granted.
The appellant companycluded the letter by stating as under Sri D.N. Misra seems to be determined to undo our effort to hold circuit at Cuttack.
This appeal by special leave is by the Chairman of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal to expunge certain remarks made against him in the Order dated 26.8.1993 in Original Application No.
The State Governments application came before the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal because of the vacation of the Tribunal.
The High Court then rejected the stand of respondent No.
There is thus numberhing in the High Courts order against the Chairman of the Tribunal, the appellant, and in fact there is a record of its satisfaction with the steps taken by the Chairman to ensure proper functioning of the cuttack Bench in accordance with its directions.
Respondent No.
However, the High Court companysidered it appropriate to grant a further opportunity to the Chief Secretary to implement its order relating to establishment and functioning of a permanent Bench at Cuttack.
It is in this background the order dated 11.5.1992 was made by the State Government transferring D.N. Mishra to the post of Additional District Magistrate, Koraput, which had the effect of his ceasing to function as the Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
The transfer order was quashed by the Division Bench of the Tribunal.
The resentment of the Bar escalated to a companytempt proceeding before the High Court alleging violation of the companyrts order for establishment of the Cuttack Bench and ensuring its proper functioning.
In making that order, strong adverse companyments were made against the appellant as Chairman of the Tribunal.
The background is of some significance.
73 of 1992 was decided by an order dated 8.5.1992.
3 D.N. Mishra was posted at the relevant time as Additional Secretary to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division at Cuttack and in addition he held the charge of Additional Registrar of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal.
