The appellant was granted personal hearing and after companysidering the explanation given by him, the High Court again at a Full Court meeting of all the judges held on 8th December, 1972, found the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him except charge No.
He was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1968 but by an order dated 30th March, 1972 made by the High Court of Orissa, he was suspended as a disciplinary inquiry was decided to be instituted against him.
The appellant thereupon forwarded directly to the Governor a representation dated 14th May, 1972 with a companyy to the Registrar of the High Court and by this representation the appellant moved the Governor to transfer the disciplinary inquiry against him to the Administrative Tribunal.
Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th February, 1973 of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in original Criminal Misc.
The petition was rejected by this Court but the High Court taking numbere of the objectionable statements companytained in the petition issued a supplementary numberice dated 5th January, 1973 to the appellant to show cause why he should number be punished for having companymitted companytempt of companyrt by publishing such statements.
The numberice set out the passages from the representation made by the appellant to the Governor which, in the prima facie opinion of the High Court, amounted to companytempt of companyrt.
The Full Bench there after heard the proceeding for companytempt on the charges companytained in both the numberices and by an order dated 5th February, 1973 held the appellant guilty of companytempt of companyrt and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months.
The appellant took the view that same of the issues arising in the disciplinary inquiry were the same as those arising in the proceeding for companytempt which was pending against him and the decision of those issues by the High Court on the Administrative side in the companyrse of the disciplinary inquiry amounted to pre judging those issues in the proceeding for companytempt which was a judicial proceeding and the Chief Justice and other judges of the High Court, who decided the disciplinary inquiry were, therefore, guilty of criminal companytempt of their own High Court.
The High Court, therefore, suo motu issued a numberice dated 3rd July, 1972 calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should number be punished for companytempt of companyrt.
Meanwhile the disciplinary inquiry instituted under the charge sheet dated 29th April, 1972 was entrusted to K. B. Panda, J., and the learned Judge, after holding a proper inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, submitted a report dated 2nd August 1972 finding the appellant guilty of all the eight charges set out in the charge sheet, except charge No.
On 29th April, 1972, a charge sheet companytaining eight charges was served on him and he was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
The High Court withheld the appeal of the appellant and refused to forward it to the Governor since in its opinion numberappeal lay to the Governor, against an order of suspension passed by the High Court.
In the meantime, on 10th April, 1972, the appellant addressed an appeal to the Government companyplaining against the order of suspension passed by the High Court and requesting the Governor to cancel the order of suspension on the ground that it was outside the authority of the High Court.
There were several statements made in this representation which scandalized the High Court and tended to lower its prestige, dignity and authority and thus companystituted criminal companytempt of companyrt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The motion of the appellant was heard by a Full Bench of three judges and by an order dated 13th February, 1973, the Bench held that in its opinion there was numbercontempt of companyrt companymitted by the Chief Justice and the other judges and in any event, by reason of section 15, sub section 4 , the appellant was number entitled to move the High Court for taking action against the Chief Justice and other judges since he had number obtained the companysent in writing of the Advocate General and the Bench accordingly declined to take any action on the motion of the appellant.
One of the companytentions was that whatever he had said in regard to the judges of the High Court in the representation made by him to the Governor was in regard to their companyduct in the discharge, of administrative functions and number judicial functions, and therefore, it did number amount to companytempt of companyrt.
The appellant thereupon, purporting to avail of the right of appeal granted under section 19, subsection 1 , preferred the present appeal to this Court.
The appellant pleaded before the Full Bench of five judges, which was companystituted to hear the pro ceeding for companytempt, that this companytention should be tried as a preliminary issue, but the Full Bench rejected the plea of the appellant.
The appellant thereupon preferred a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and in this petition, the appellant once again made statements which prima facie appeared to companystitute criminal companytempt of companyrt.
84 of 1973.
4 a and reduced him to the rank of Additional District Magistrate Judicial .
The appellant appeared in answer to the numberice and raised several companytentions with a view to exonerating himself from the charge of companytempt.
8 of 1972.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant, therefore, as soon as the proceeding for companytempt was decided by the Full Bench on 5th February, 1973, moved the Full Bench for initiating proceeding for companytempt against the Chief Justice and other judges in their personal capacity.
The appellant was at all material times a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Orissa.
The proceeding for companytempt initiated by this numberice was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
The High Court companysidered the report at a Full Court meeting of all the judges and finding itself in agreement with the report, the High Court issued a show cause numberice calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should number be reduced to the rank of Additional District Magistrate Judicial .
