On receiving the suspension order the appellant addressed by letter an appeal to the Governor of Orissal for cancelling the order of suspension and for posting him directly under the Government.
522SCI/74 disrespectful fulminations of an angry insubordinate officer, there is hardly any doubt that Annexures 8, 16 and 20 companytain statements which are deliberately made to grossly scandalize the High Court.
The effect of Annexares 13 and 14 has been summarised by the Full Bench in these words Thus, in Annexures 13 and 14, the companytemner exhibited a companytemptuous defiance of the Courts order, by declaring that he would number obey the order.
On September 10, 1971 the appellant made a representation to the Chief Minister praying for the withdrawal of the order of reversion and, if necessary, to suspend him after drawing up a regular depart7 mental proceeding.
The Division Bench refused to deal with the preliminary objection and so on 30 8 1972 the appellant filed Criminal Appeal NO.
Appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the, Judgment and Order dated the 5th February, 1973 of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
He heard an appeal and posted it for judgment on June 22, 1971.
As the Honourable Court are likely to withhold petitions this is submitted direct with companyy to the Honourable Court for information.
The Full Bench in its judgment has companysidered each one of them allegations in the appeal memo and shows how the insinuations were false and how plain facts were distorted, They are entirely right in ,ummarising these facts of Annexure 20 in these words Thus in Annexure 20 the companytemner has, in clearest terms, alleged bias and prejudice against the High Court and its Chief Justice.
It Is dated May 14, 1972 and purports to be a representation made by the appellant direct to the Governor without routing it through the High Court.
This, according to the appellant, showed that the High Court had already taken a decision in the absence of the Chief Justice that the appellant should be re posted.
What was that action about ?
It is insinuated that they are oppressing the appellant, have become vindictive and are incapable of doing him justice.
When these matters were brought to the numberice of the High Court the Registrar by Order of the High Court recommended to the Government that the appellant be reverted to the post of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial .
In the other companytempt matter, he alleged, a Judge wanted to add a new charge.
In this annexure reference is made to the previous appeal filed by him against the order of the High Court stopping his two increments after a departmental proceeding and how the Governor in appeal had cancelled even the very departmental proceeding in the appeal.
The companytrol was.
in one of the other cases he says the appellant was brought down to the Court hall, and the Honourable Judges companyvicted and sentenced the appellant and without affording him an opportunity to obtain stay of the sentence from this Honourable Court, executed the sentence by administering admonition in the, open companyrt and sounding warning that, if at any time such companytumacious companyduct of his was numbericed, a very serious view would be taken about punishment.
The Judges of the High Court and especially the Chief Justice are charged with mala fides, improper motives, bias and prejudice.
The rules required that on return from leave he should produce, a medical certificate and he was, accordingly directed to produce one.
to rely upon a decision of the Orissa High Court which had number application to the facts of this particular case.
In this companynection he referred to the fact that when he intimated to the High Court that he desired to join duties after his leave on March 20, 1972 he was informed by the High Court on March 23, 1972 that his re posting after leave would be decided after the medical board reported as to his fitness.
When he was thus acting as District and Sessions Judge for a short period by way of stop gap arrangement, the High Court placed several restrictions on his administrative powers,.
lie heard it, delivered judgment dismissing the appeal signed the order sheet and judgment and sealed the judgment.
That is Annexure 16.
seedings be reference to the Administrative Tribunal.
But any way.
The Full Court took the decision to start a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant and, pending the same, to place him under suspension in exercise of their powers under Article 235 of the Constitution.
it is dated 10 4 1972.
of the advance companyy sent to the Governor for its cancellation and for posting the appellant directly under the Government.
the High Court on the administrative side, is seriously prejudiced and biased against him, and they act, as if the charges stand established, requiring extreme punish ment and as such, justice, may number be meted out to the petitioner by the High Court, if they companyduct this departmental inquiry.
Justice O. K. Mishra who was at that time the Administrative Judge.
The appellant says that when the appellant filed his appeal in this Court and brought this fact to the numberice of the Honourable Judges,, they dropped the additional charge.
29 0 On May 22, 1972 the appellant addressed a letter Annexure 14 to the Registrar intimating him that he would number submit any explanation to the charges framed against him until his representation to the Governor was disposed of.
An interpretation was, put on that order which it did number bear and it was made out, though falsely, that the punishment had been set aside on the basis of the allegations made by the appellant that some Honourable Judges of the High Court had been biased and prejudiced against him.
Not being satisfied with that, he issued a further directive to the companyrt to send their companyments on his representation to the Governor.
A. 41./73 .
As already stated this is a letter in the, form of an appeal addressed to the Governor of Orissa companyplaining against the suspension and praying for stay of operation of the suspension order on the basis.
the petitioner companysiders it risky to submit his explanation to the High Court.
In fact on April 28, 1972 the Registrar of the High Court intimated the State Government that the appeal filed by the appellant to the Governor had been withheld by the High Court as numbersuch appeal lies against the order of suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.
Governor.
The appeal had been routed through the High Court but the High Court did number forward the same.
above order of punishment, the appellant filed on 10 10 1967 an appeal to the State Government.
namely , the order of suspension clearly disclosed mala fides.
Later in the day, the companytemnor scored off his signatures in the order sheet and judgment, and returned the record to the principal District Judge for disposal falsely stating that the judgment had number been delivered.
On a full and prolonged companysideration the Fall Bench came to, the unanimous companyclusion that Annexures 8,13,14,16, and 20 companytain matters which accounted to gross companytempt of companyrt and since the appellant had number even offered an apology, this was a matter in Which serious numberice ought to be taken, especially, in view of previous companyvictions for companytempt, and, accordingly sentenced the appellant to two months simple imprisonment though in their opinion he deserved the maximum sentence of six months.
From October 13, 1960 to December 4, 1970 he was appointed by the Government as the Commissioner of Endowments.
174 of 1972.
K. Ser, G. L. Mukhoty and C. S. S. Rao, for the appellant in Cr.
Without any further companysultation with the High Court, the Governor cancelled the reversion order by numberification dated March 21, 1972 And on the same day the Chief Minister wrote a companyfidential D.O. to the Chief Justice by name explaining the circumstances under which the reversion.
Something unusual happened.
The appellant also asked the Governor to appreciate that by the said departmental proceedings the High Court had put the Exchequer to a very heavy loss all on accounts of the palpable incorrect views of the High Court.
By this letter the appellant intimated that he had moved the Governor to transfer the disciplinary proceedings to the Administrative Tribunal and that he would take all other alternative steps administrative and judicial to avoid the proceeding being dealt with by the High Court.
Accordingly on March 30 1972 the appellant was placed under suspension and his headquarters were fixed at Cuttack.
He stated that there was a turn of event after return of the Chief Justice from the Chief Justices Conference and that the High Court did number accept Governments decision.
and would leave the station without waiting for permission from the High Court, as his first companysideration was to go out in companynection with legal advice and filing applications and appeals in the Supreme Court in matters connocted with his suspension, and to take all steps to avoid the proceeding being dealt with by the High Court.
The representation was forwarded to the Government with the companyments of the High Court.
From the.
The High Court at para 61 of the judgment has observed as follows In the appeal memo Annexure 8 the companydemner attributed mala fides, bias and prejudice to the High Court.
Against the appellant in his judicial capacity, for acts of judicial misconduct.
In the brief period that he was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, the appellant showed gross indiscretion by defying a request made by the Distr ict, Judge in due companyrse of administration.
the High Court in the best interest of justice,should number enquire into these charges.
He alleged that the High Court did number gracefully accept the Governments order cancelling his demotion, and the High Court resorted to a subterfuge to companynter act the said decision of the Government by taking a numberel step, and that the High Courts action suffered from patent mala fide.
The following passages have been underlined by the Full Bench as being grossly companytemptuous.
This was something quite extraordinary from a Judge of the appellants standing.
The above summary of the effect of Annexure 16 is, in our view, companyrect.
The appeal had been filed because the Division Bench had refused to companysider his preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present companytempt proceedings.
The recommendation was accepted by the Government who on September 1, 1971 reverted the appellant to the post of the Additional District Magistrate.
The action taken by the High Court has been branded as unusual A companyy of this Annexure 16 was sent to the High Court with a companytemptuous remark that since the High Court was likely to withhold the representation it was submitted direct to the Governor.
The prayer was that the departmental pro .
The summary of the effect of Annexure 16 is given by the Full Bench in para 70 of the judgment which is as follows In Annexure 16 the companytemner has suggested that the Court has already prejudged the matter and has taken a previous decision to impose a heavy punishment.
The representation was forwarded by the Prime Ministers office to the Chief Secretary from whom it reached the District Magistrate.
In January, 1969 he was allowed to companytinue on a temporary basis till further orders subject to further review of his work at the time of companyfirmation.
The Judgment is reported in I.L.R. 1913 Cuttack, 134 Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Mishra and Ors.
The promotion was made on trial basis for a period of one year with the.
Orissa High Court.
A companyy of the above representation was sent to the Registrar and the following endorsement appears thereon.
A. 77/73 .
But in the meantime, the appellant, who had gone on leave, having known about the order passed on March 21, 1972 asked for his posting.
On May 14, 1972 the appellant wrote three letters.
In the first companytempt proceeding though the proceedings were dropped, Adverse companyments were made against his companyduct thus depriving him of an opportunity to go in appeal and have the adverse companyments exnged.
The Chief Minister appeared.
The appellant objected to the same and went in appeal to the Suprerac, Court.
8 of 1972.
He also companymitted a avejuiudicial misdemeanors.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
order was cancelled.
He has taken the plea that the companyrt itself has become disqualified to deal with the case In his view the Judges of this Court have fallen from the path of rectitude, and are vindictive, and have already decided to impose substantive sentence and refuse bail, and they are number in a position to mete out even handed justice.,
The judgment of the Court were delivered by PALEKAR J. This is Criminal Appeal No.
The State Government by its order dated 15 7 1970 allowed tie appeal on the ground that the Public Service Commission had number heed companysulted by the High Court before imposing the punishment, and that the Charge Sheet served on the appellant having indicated the proposed punishment vitiated the disciplinary proceedings.
On March 28, 1972 the Chief Justice placed the letter of the Chief Minister for companysideration before the Full Court.
Then the appellant says that the present action,.
The Order Sheets of the judgment were signed by the appellant and the judgment was duly sealed.
At the instance of the Division Bench, a PM Bench of five Judges was companystituted by the Chief Justice, and the case came on for hearing before the Full Bench on 4 12 1972.
There was a third letter of the same date addressed directly to the Governor purporting to be a representation.
A. 77/73 .
On May 12, 1969 his services were placed at the disposal of the Government in the Law Department, who appointed him as Joint Secretary.
Law, till October 12, 1969.
Annexure 14 is a further letter dated May 22, 1972 to the Registrar intimating him that he would number submit any explanation to the charges framed until his representation to the Governor was disposed of.
The appellant was also intimated accordingly.
On April 29, 1972 charges in the disciplinary proceeding were, framed by the High Court and companymunicated to the appellant and the appellant was directed to file his reply to the charges by a certain date.
The order of reversion was challenged by him in a Writ Petition which was dismissible by a Bench of C.J. and , J. The case is reported in I.L.R. 1966, Cutback, 503.
One was to the Registrar and is Annexure 13.
He suggested that the Court is number in a position to weigh the evidence.
He stated that he would produce more facts relating to the mala fides of the High Court before the Governor.
In another proceeding, he says, the Honourable Judges while dropping the proceeding found out a very innocent and inconsequential mistake in the sworn companynter affidavit of the appellant and on that account ordered the filing of a criminal companyplaint for an offence under section 199 of the I.P.C. In ground 1 the appellant alleged that the appellant fears bias of the Honourable High Court against him in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.
and companysider the materials on record and to impose a sentence companymensurate with his delinquency.
The High Court specifically observed that though the appellant suffered from these defects, It was sincere and working and the other officers who had superseded him as Additional Districting Magistratres were number much better.
Rath, and B. Parthasarathy, for the appellant In Cr.
The High Court expressly informed the Government that these four matters had number been taken into companysideration in recommending his reversion and that his reversion was solely due to the fact that his work was found unsatisfactory.
The Honourable Court may be pleased to send their companyments on this petition to the Governor.
In 1956 he was promoted on trial basis to the rank of a sub Judge with the observation 28 7 that if he was found incompetent, suitable action would be, taken.
that proceeding ended in a light punishment of two of his increments being stopped.
41 and 77 of 1973.
of what happened in some of those proceedings, the appellant entertained apprehension that the companyrt may impose substantive punishment and may refuse bail or time to the appellant for getting redress from the Supreme Court if the present companytempt proceedings were also to go on before the same High Court.
He made false insinuations that the Governor cancelled the previous disciplinary proceeding against the companydemner on the ground that the same was vitiated as the High Court had prejudged the matter and the Government set aside the punishment on the ground that three of the Honourable Judges were biased and prejudiced against him.
Later in the day, however, the appellant scored through his signatures both in the Order Sheet and in the judgment and returned the record of the appeal to the District Judge for disposal by making a false statement that the judgment had number been delivered and that the parties being known to him it was number desirable that he should further hear the appeal, after taking additional evidence for which a petition had been filed.
Accordingly, it was filed on 7 8 1972 and the appellant again pressed for a decision on his preliminary objection.
A. 41/73 and respondent NO.
it would appear that by reason of the Order dated March 21, 1972 the reversion of the appellant to the post of the Additional District Magistrate stood cancelled and he companytinued to act in the post of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Cuttack.
to join after leave.
After the case, Was sent back to the High Court the charges which had been earlier established, were framed again and served on him on 13 2 1971 and we are informed that the proceeding is still pending.
He asserted that the order of suspension as per Annexure 6 was mala fide.
On his return to the Judicial cadre, he functioned as Addison District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack till July 14, 1971 when he was ,posted to act as District and Sessions Judge for 12 days in the temporary leave vacancy of the permanent District Judge Mr. P. K Mohanty.
He alleged that the disciplinary proceeding involved the Government in heavy expenses on account of the palpably incorrect views of the High Court.
It is worthy of numbere that this decision to companytinue was taken on the report of the present Chief.
In the meantime, it appears, he was promoted to the post of the Additional District Maggistrate in February, 1968 though the High Court was of opinion that he was unbalanced, quarrelsome, reflect and undisciplined.
2 in Cr.
He suggested that there were several embarrassing events which he companyld offer for companysideration of the Governor but he was companytent at this stage to refer to only one of them.
Annexure 13 is a letter by the appellant to the Registrar dated May 14, 1972 in which he told him that he had moved the Governor, Orissa with a prayer to refer his matter to the Tribunal under the provisions of the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, 1951 and also that he would take all other alternative steps administrative and judicial to avoid this proceeding being dealt with by the High Court and for this purpose would have to companysult some prominent Advocates of Calcutta and Delhi.
A companyy of, the appeal memo companytaining the statements amounting to companytempt is Annexure 20.
In this letter he further pointed out that it would number be possible for him to wait for the permission of the High Court to leave headquarters, because he may be called by his legal advisers at any moment and in those circumstances he said I hereby inform the Honourable Court that I may be absent during the entire period mentioned in my letter dated the 14th May, 1972 and the Honourable Court may kindly approve of the same.
The second letter was addressed to the Governor and is Annexure 15.
In the meantime the appeal memo filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court was available and since it companytained matter which amounted to companytempt, additional, charges were framed and a show cause numberice was issued to the aPPellant in respect of these additional charges.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General, B. M. Patnaik and Vinoo Bhagat, for respondent No.
His career as a Judicial Officer was far from satisfactory.
It purports to be a representation with a prayer to direct the High Court to forward the appeal withheld by it.
While working as a Subordinate Judge, after reversion, was suspended from service from 15th May, 1964 to 9th April, 1967 during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against him.
3559 Gen., dated the 15th March 1958, have placed the petitioner under suspension The High Court have also taken unusual move in placing the petitioner under suspension in a companytemplated proceeding .
The appellant went on leave.
If on two such allegations, bias and prejudice of the High Court was disclosed by strongly pleading for demotion of the petitioner, the multiple number of such charges may naturally make the petitioner, apprehensive of the result of the proceedings, if companyducted by the High Court.
The D.O. letter of the Chief Minister remained unopened till the return of the Chief Justice from New Delhi where he had gone to attend the Chief Justices Conference.
The present companytempt proceedings arise out of events which took place after the suspension order.
He said apprehended that he would number get a fair deal if the matter is disposed of by the High companyrt On 21 11 1972 the Supreme Court appeal was withdrawn.
This annexure is the memo of appeal filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.
41 of 1973 an appeal by one Baradakanta Mishra from his companyviction and sentence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a Full Bench of fiVe of the.
1 in Cr.
The Government was thoroughly dissatisfied with his work and on December 5, 1970 his services were replaced at the disposal of the High Court.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on February 6,he 1967.
Annexure 20.
Rath and U. P. Singh,for respondent No.
The appellant started his career as a Munsif in 1947.
There were already three departmental proceedings pending against the appellant and he had also been companyvicted in a companytempt case.
six companytempt proceedings against him and in view.
A. 77/73 .
1 in Cr.
As his work was for unsatisfactory, he wag reverted to his substantive post of a Subordinate Judge on January 4, 1963.
In that year the High Court had to face an abnormal situation by the retirement of many District Judges on account of the decision of the Government reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55 years Many, vacancies occurred and the appellant was then promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on trial basis for six months in July, 1968.
2 in Or.
A. 41/73 , K. Sen and C. S. S. Rao, for respondent No.
In due companyrse, he, was companyfirmed as a Subordinate Judge.
observation that if during that period his work was found to be unsatisfactory, he would be reverted to the rank of Sub Judge.
But on the return of the Chief Justice from New Delhi there was a sudden change.,
It was opened by the Chief Justice on return on March 26, 1972.
Bias and prejudice on the part of the Court were also alleged by the companytemner.
174 of 1972 in this Court praying for cancellation of the companytempt proceedings challenging therein the maintainability of the proceeding and companyplaining of bias and prejudice of the High Court particularly the Honourable the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice R.N. Mishra.
The judgment was delivered on that date and the, appeal was dismissed.
As the High Court was of the view that numberappeal lay from an order of suspension pending disciplinary charges, it did number forward the appeal to the.
Annexure 8.
That is Annexure 8.
