The High Court at Calcutta has dismissed an appeal filed by a discharged judicial officer after identifying deeply disrespectful language within the memorandum of appeal. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai addressed the conduct of the appellant, Rajender Kumar Dudeja, during a hearing on October 13, 2026. While the court initially considered initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act due to the nature of the allegations, it ultimately refrained from doing so after the appellant tendered an unconditional apology via affidavit and withdrew the offending contentions from the record.

The proceedings before the High Court involved a challenge by the former judicial officer to an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge bench on September 11, 2026. This order had been issued in the context of an ongoing disciplinary challenge. During the course of the appeal, the Division Bench examined the grounds formulated by the appellant, which included claims that the Single Judge was biased because of his status as an Additional Judge whose confirmation was purportedly dependent upon the High Court administration.

The court noted that the appellant had personally drafted these grounds, which the Bench found to be not only procedurally irregular but fundamentally offensive to the dignity of the judiciary. In its order, the court observed, "Our judicial conscience is shocked by the manner in which the discharged Judicial Officer had drafted the above grounds."

Unprofessional Conduct and Forum Shopping The Division Bench highlighted that the appellant's strategy appeared to be a calculated effort to manipulate the judicial process. By questioning the competence and independence of the Single Judge, the appellant sought to undermine the court's authority and effectively engage in " forum shopping ." The court explicitly identified this behavior, stating, "We find the above conduct of the Judicial Officer to be an attempt to resort to forum shopping for avoiding the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order. Such conduct is contemptuous ."

The Bench further clarified that the Single Judge, whose order was the subject of the appeal, had been acting within the scope of his assigned determination. The court rejected the appellant's contention that a Division Bench should have heard the writ petition, noting that the appellant failed to cite any specific convention or rule from the Original Side Rules of the High Court to support such a demand. The court emphasized that the Single Judge had shown patience and compassion during the hearing process, intending only to facilitate a fair outcome by directing the production of necessary inquiry records.

The Role of Legal Representation The conduct of the hearing was marked by unusual interruptions from the petitioner, who, despite being represented by counsel, frequently sought to address the Bench directly. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner attempted to lecture the court on judicial discipline, directing his comments toward the Single Judge who had delivered the initial interlocutory order. The Bench took a dim view of these tactics, noting that the appellant had demonstrated a disregard for standard judicial protocols.

The court specifically noted that the counsel for the appellant had certified the inflammatory grounds in the memorandum of appeal. However, once the Bench indicated its intent to initiate contempt proceedings, the counsel requested an opportunity to address the situation. This led to a pass-over for one hour, during which the appellant prepared a formal affidavit. The document, dated October 13, 2026, provided an unconditional apology and a commitment that such language would not be used in future filings.

Future Consequences and Judicial Integrity While the court accepted the apology and opted not to proceed with a formal contempt notice at this time, it issued a stern warning regarding the future conduct of the individual. The Bench established a clear precedent for any subsequent legal actions involving the appellant, asserting that his behavior would be subject to strict scrutiny by any court he might approach.

The court warned, "If in future, in any proceeding before any Court, the Appellant / Judicial Officer, Shri Rajender Kumar Dudeja, resorts to the use of such language, which is unconscionable and cannot be countenanced, qua a judicial officer or the Court, this order would be taken into account by the concerned Court/Authority if Contempt of Court proceedings are initiated and his conduct would be treated as an act of aggravated contempt ."

Final Determination on Merits Beyond the contempt issues, the Division Bench evaluated the merits of the appeal against the interlocutory order. After analyzing the submissions and the order of the Single Judge, the Court found no evidence of perversity or legal error. The impugned order had primarily sought to ensure that a complete set of documents, including the records of the disciplinary enquiry, were available to the court to facilitate a comprehensive review.

The High Court affirmed that the Single Judge had followed correct procedure in calling for affidavits and records, rejecting the appellant's argument that such directions were intended to cause delay. The court concluded that the challenge lacked substantive legal weight and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The Registry of the High Court was subsequently directed to provide a copy of the appellant's affidavit of apology to the Single Judge, effectively closing this particular chapter of the ongoing disciplinary litigation. The appeal, APO/67/2026, and all associated interim applications were disposed of by the Court.