A District Magistrate must observe decorum in his dealings with the judiciary and should not use disrespectful or contumelious language in his communications with the High Court.

1. This is a proceeding in contempt order- . ed against the District Magistrate of Saran, Mr. N. Nagamani, I. A. S., in the following circumstances. Under the direction of the Court, one of the members of the bench visited the Criminal Courts in the District of Saran at Chapra, Gopalganj and Siwan. The learned Judge came to certain conclusions as a result of his inspection and he presented a report to this Court duly containing certain comments on the working of the Criminal Courts as also pointing out certain defects therein. A copy of the report of the learned Judge was accordingly sent to the District Magistrate, Saran, for necessary action. The District Magistrate sent a reply to the report addressed to the Registrar, dated the 7th June 1958 (vide letter No. 1833/L). It is that letter which has given rise to the present proceeding against him inasmuch as this Court felt that the letter referred to above was un-warranted and uncalled for. The language and tone of the letter were distinctly disrespectful towards the learned Judge who held inspection of the Criminal Courts at Chapra, Gopalganj and Siwan, The letter amounted to casting reflection upon the dignity of this Court and, consequently, amounted to obstruction to the course of justice. Mr. Nagamani has appeared to show caurse and is represented before us by the learned Advocate General, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the show cause petition, which are relevant, run thus:

"3. That with regard to the language of the letter of 7-6-1958, the petitioner most unreservedly expresses his deep regrets and unqualified apologies and submits that he never intended and never could intend any disrespect to the Hon ble Judge of this Court.

4. That the said letter was written under a misapprehension and the petitioner should have seem that the said report contained directions for future guidance by the courts in the district."

Mr. Nagamani, who is present here in person, evidently) appears to be sorry for the letter addressed to this Court which has given rise to the present proceedings. With regard to the propriety of the above letter, paragraph 4 must be accepted as sufficient explanation as he states that the letter was written under a misapprehension. He appreciates the position that when the High Court forwarded to Rim a copy of the inspection report by the learned Judge, it was with a view to appri e him of the conclusions recorded in the inspection note so that as the District Magistrate he might take necessary action which was called for according to the tenor of the report.

It was not at all necessary for him to address a letter in reply to the High Court. As it is, however, since Mr. Nagamani has now realised that his letter was uncalled for and that he wrote it under a misapprehension, it must be accepted as sufficient, so far as the writing of the letter itself is concerned.

2. The next question for consideration is the language of the letter. The attention of the District Magistrate: was drawn to the specific expressions in his letter to which this Court took objection is order to apprise him factually of where he erred and for his future guidance. Mr. Nagamani is a young officer who joined the Indian Administrative Service in 1952 and as such there may be something to be said for the error which he committed in drafting the letter in the language and in the tone employed by him. For instance, he says at one place "I am surprised to find etc., etc.,". Mr. Nagamani should never have used that expression even if he felt that the conclusion of the learned judge was not correct as he found on fuller enquiry into the matter.

The next expression used by him is "... .a dis- torted version based probably on statements -made by some interested parties .....". Our objection is only to the use of the expression distorted" inasmuch as the learned Judge of this Court was not interested in any kind of distortion of fact. He may have come to an incorrect conclusion, but he would certain