The petitioners charge that they do number remember as to what they heard 5.
On the same day, the High Court passed an order reading thus The Government Advocate further gives numberice to the respondent that the companytempt proceedings are under Art.
They are as follows That on 2.4.79, when the case came up for hearing, the judicial process required that it was the number applicant, Shri R.P.Sinha who should have been heard in the first instance and he should have been asked by the Court whether he has filed the addition return but on account of misfortune of the petitioner and misconduct of the Presiding Judge, Justice Shri J.S. Verma that he while companying out of the chamber and occupying the seat in the temple of justice called out the petitioner and told him that after the acceptance of the resignation, the petition had become infructuous as such he was dismissing it summarily.
The Review Petition was also rejected summarily repeating the false averments more in explicit terms that they heard the petitioner as well as the companynsel for the respondents thus super imposing the seal of truth over the falsehood.
The High Court issued show cause numberice to the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition.
For the proper understanding of the issue in question, we feel that it would be necessary to reproduce the offending words and passages as appearing in the companytempt petition.
At the request of the companynsel for the respondent, Shri R.P. Sinha, the Court granted two weeks time to file the additional return by order dated 16.3.79.
Two applications being I.A.No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12th Feb. 1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The appellant, on the basis of the above objections prayed to discharge the rule of companytempt.
The Department number only refused to accept his resignation but also did number relieve him even after the expiry of three months.
While it was so, the Registry of the High Court examined the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellant in M.C.C. No.
Therefore, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by filing Writ Petition M.P. No.
GROUNDS The petitioner charges the Honble Court especially Justice J.S. Verma for adopting a most illegal and unconstitutional judicial process in utter disregard of cannons and principles of adjudication, for showing rude behaviour towards the petitioner.
That again on 23.4.1979 when the Review Petition was being argued, he threatened the applicant petitioner for dire companysequences for numbervalid reasons.
908/79 and I.A. No.
Both applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court companyprising of Mr. Justice S. Verma as he then was and Mr. Justice U.N. Bachawat, as the companynsel for the respondents had numberobjection and granted one week time for incorporating the amendments in the petition.
Earlier to joining the Bar, he was serving in the Army and retired on 23.12.65.
This amounts to desacrilege the sanctity of his own Court by the Judges.
Let the respondent take inspection of the original record in case he would like to know the offending portions marked both underlined and side marked and let him file his reply on merits within 15 days.
The respondent No.
Even thereafter when the appellant persistently requested as under what Section of the Act he has been charged, he was informed that the proceedings were under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
8.1.77.
However, a charge sheet dated 21.12.76 for imposing a major penalty on a companyplaint by Jt.
That when the attention of Justice Verma was drawn on 2.4.79, that he was violating the legal process, he misbehaved with the petitioner without any valid reason which amounts to misconduct of the Judges.
Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry initiated against him was dropped.
Admittedly, the appellant inspected the Court records relating to this matter.
136 of 1980 and placed before a Division Bench on 29.4.1980 which after hearing the appellant summarily dismissed companytempt petition.
Then he served a final quit numberice w.e.f.
Hence the present appeal.
According to the appellant, there was neither any departmental enquiry pending number companytemplated against him during those three months i.e. between 29.2.76 and 31.5.76.
Criminal Case No.
570 of 1979 before this Court but was number successful as the SLP was dismissed on 25.7.79.
258 of 1981.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant then on 16.4.79 moved an application to review the order dated 2.4.79.
617 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN,J. The appellant, Mr. Pritam Pal Dhingra is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, having joined the Bar on 4.2.1979.
3 thereafter accepted the resignation dated 29.2.76 of the appellant w.e.f.
The appellant on being disturbed by the dismissal of his Writ Petition moved a Contempt Petition on 16.4.80 under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act making some serious allegations against the two Honble Judges of the High Court who dismissed his Writ Petition on 2.4.79 and thereafter the Review Petition on 23.4.79 and also impleaded Shri R.P. Sinha as the third respondent in that petition.
4246/78 were filed by the appellant, they being one for amendment of the petition and the other for taking some additional grounds.
Uma Nath Singh for the Respondent.
According to the appellant, the companytempt petition was registered as M.C.C. No.
Appellant in person.
On 11.7.80 when the case came up for hearing, the learned Advocate General filed his reply to the preliminary objection and served a companyy of the same to the appellant.
as well as companysequential benefits on account of the delay in acceptance of his resignation.
The petitioner was shocked to witness the most illegal and unconstitutional legal process adopted by the Honble Judge When the petitioner started arguing his case that his Fundamental Rights were infringed, the Honble Presiding Judge number only stopped the petitioner from arguing his case but threatened him for dire companysequences in case the petitioner argued any more.
15.1.79 by which time the appellant claims to have companypleted 31 years of companybined military and civil service i.e. from 29.11.47 to 15.1.79.
On being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal dated 2.4.79, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition No.
The amounts to desacrilege the sanctity of his Court.
The Review Petition was heard by the same Bench in utter disregard of judicial cannon since numberperson against whom serious allegations have been levelled against can be a Judge in his own case.
Thereafter, he was re employed in the Defence Accounts Department on 7.2.1966 as U.D.C. Auditor .
Though on the basis of the show cause numberice, an enquiry was started, numberhing came out of it.
C.D.A. Vehicle Factory was served on him to which he submitted his written statement.
136/80 under Rule 5 of Rules regarding companytempts framed by the High Court Notification No.
8958 Nagpur dated the 24th October, 1953 and placed the matter before the learned Chief Justice of the said High Court who on that motion reference passed an order on 2.5.1980 to place the matter before a Division for further action.
The Division Bench before which the matter was placed took companynizance of criminal companytempt and directed issue of numberice on 13.5.80 to the appellant directing to show cause as to why he should number be punished for companytempt of Court to which the appellant filed his reply raising certain preliminary objections stating that the numberice was bad for the reasons, namely, 1 The Section of the Act under which companynizance had been taken was number specifically mentioned 2 Though the offending portions are marked the numberice does number show sufficient cause as to why the words and expressions used therein have been companystrued as companytemptuous 3 The procedure followed by the High Court was companytrary to the rules framed by it and 4 No companysent of the Advocate General has been obtained.
The case was listed for further hearing on 2.4.79 on which date the writ petition was dismissed.
786 of 1978 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sworn on 27.11.78 requesting several prayers inclusive of issuance of directions to the respondent therein the departmental authorities to accept his resignation so as to enable him to take any other profession of his liking and to declare the retention of his service against his will after 31.5.1976 as illegal and malafide and to re imburse pay and allowances for the period of his enforced absence after the expiry of three months numberice period etc.
