Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma : K.Venkataswami
Abani Kanta Ray
Versus
State Of Orissa
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/13/95
Advocates Appeared: Chatterjee G.S. : Das Jayant : Mehta R.K. : Mishra P.N. : Panda A.K. : Sanghi G.L.
Appeal Against conviction - discharging judicial functions – Jurisdiction - Respondent was posted at relevant time as Additional secretary to Revenue Divisional Commissioner, central Division at Cuttack and in addition he held the charge of Additional Registrar of Cuttack bench of the tribunal - Apparently, the appellant as Chairman of the tribunal was not satisfied with the performance Additional Registrar of the tribunal - Appellant wrote a confidential letter Chief secretary recommending that any other officer may be deputed to function as the Additional Registrar. In that letter, the appellant had stated that the functioning of the Cuttack bench of the tribunal was unsatisfactory and could not improve because Respondent 3 was not interested in doing this work and was only creating confusion and problems in spite of being explained everything by him as well as the Registrar - Letter further stated that the attitude of was obstructive and, therefore, urgent action was necessary in compliance with High courts direction confirmed by the Supreme court - Appellant concluded the letter by staling as under – Held, Again this court in reiterated this position while expunging the disparaging remarks made against an advocate who was also the former Advocate General of State while dismissing a review petition - These disparaging remarks were also contained only in the separate concurring order of one of learned Judges of the division bench. Incidentally, this matter was the aftermath of which made it worse - While expunging the disparaging remarks made by the learned Judge in a separate concurring order this court stated as under - It may be noted that dismissed the review petition on the ground of maintainability, limitation and locus of petitioner - Thereafter the application was filed to pass strictures against the appellant in light of proceedings seems to have acceded to that request. No doubt each judge is independent to form an opinion of his own in deciding cases or in any phase of the decisional function. But the facts of the present case against the background of the views expressed by this court apropos to earlier strictures against the government, should have warned no matter how clear he was in his mind not to the appellant - Avoidance of even the appearances of bitterness, so important in required him not to cast aspersions on the professional conduct of the appellant - What we have said above is nothing new and is only a reiteration of the established norms of judicial propriety and restraint expected from everyone discharging judicial functions. Use of intemperate language or making disparaging remarks against anyone unless that be the requirement for deciding the case, is inconsistent with judicial behavior - Written words in judicial orders form permanent record which make it even more necessary to practice self-restraint in exercise of judicial power while making written orders - It is helpful to recall this facet to remind ourselves and avoid pitfalls arising even from provocation at times - Appeal is allowed
Judgment
J.S.VERMA, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) 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. 102(C) of 1992 (OA 866 of 1992 by a division bench comprising of S.K. Mishra, Vice-Chairman and U.N. Mallik, Member (Administrative) of the tribunal. That application was made by Respondent 3 Dandanirodha Mishra for cancellation of his transfer. The transfer order was quashed by the division bench of the tribunal. In making that order, strong adverse comments were made against the appellant as Chairman of the tribunal.
(3) THE background is of some significance. After some controversy, 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. However, some grievance persisted in those favouring creation of the Cuttack bench and a contempt 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. That contempt petition (Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 73 of 1992 was decided by an order dated 8/5/1992. Reference to this order of the High court is made because of its reference in the impugned order of the tribunal.
(4) RESPONDENT 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. Apparently, the appellant as Chairman of the tribunal was not satisfied with the performance of D.N. Mishra as the Additional Registrar of the tribunal. The appellant wrote a confidential 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. In that letter, the appellant had stated that the functioning of the Cuttack bench of the tribunal was unsatisfactory and could not improve because Respondent 3 D.N. Mishra was not interested in doing this work and was only creating confusion and problems in spite of being explained everything by him as well as the Registrar. The letter further stated that the attitude of D.N. Mishra was obstructive and, therefore, urgent action was necessary in compliance with the High courts direction confirmed by the Supreme court. The appellant concluded the letter by staling as under:
"... Shri D.N. Mishra seems to be determined to undo our effort to hold circuit at Cuttack. You may take such action as you think fit against this officer. 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 notify immediately."
This letter was written by the appellant to the Chief secretary on 10/4/1992 and thereafter the contempt petition was finally heard in the High court on 20/4/1992 and decided by order dated 8/5/1992. 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 notification 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 compelled to file new cases at Bhubaneswar. 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. So, for urgent matters, a counsel has invariably to go to Bhubaneswar to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
