HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No.2423 of 2024

Himani Joshi ...Petitioner

Versus

Bar Council of India and others ….Respondents

Present:

Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra

Barthwal, Advocate for the respondent no.2 Dr. K.H. Gupta, Advocate for the intervener. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner has sought

the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of

certiorari calling for the records of the case and set aside/quash the order dated 25-9-2024 (Annexure

1) and resolution dated 4-1-2021 (Annexure 2).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner as Office Superintendent in the Office of Bar Council

of Uttarakhand, Nainital.

(iii) Any other Relief which this Hon’ble Court may

deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case

may also be granted.

(iv) Award Cost of the Writ Petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed Office Superintendent in the office of the respondent no.2/ the Bar Council of Uttarakhand on 01.10.2015. Subsequently, she was issued

a show cause notice on 07.12.2020 that her appointment is against the rules, therefore, why her services may not be terminated. The petitioner did reply to the notice on 09.12.2020. Thereafter, the Bar Counsel of Uttarakhand resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner by resolution dated 04.01.2021. This resolution was challenged by the petitioner before the Bar Council of India whereby its operation was stayed by the Bar Council of India on 19.01.2021. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25.09.2024, the Bar Council of India observed that since this Court is seized of the matter and the petitioner had already approached the police, there is no use of keeping the matter pending before the Bar Council of India. Accordingly, the proceedings were closed. This order dated 25.09.2024 of the Bar Council of India as well as the resolution dated 04.01.2021 of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand are impugned in the petition.

4. During the course of hearing, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand is in violation to the provisions of Rule 15 of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand Rules, 2014 (“the 2014 Rules”).

5. Rule 15 of the 2014 Rules is as follows:-

“(a) No Member of the staff of the council shall be removed, dismissed, or retired compulsorily unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him provided that this rule shall not apply when he is removed or dismissed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude.

(b) whenever an action is proposed to be taken against any member of the staff under Sub-Rule (a) above the Council shall frame charges, enquire into the same after giving sufficient opportunity to the members of staff as provided above and the decision of the Council and the members of the staff which shall be required to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be given. After giving an opportunity to him to do so, the Council shall give its decision as regards the punishment to be given and it shall be enforced accordingly. It shall be lawful for the Council to award a punishment less severe than that indicated in the notice.

(c) Whenever the member of the staff refused notice or after receipt of the notice does not offer an explanation within the time allowed or within such extended time as the Council may permit, it shall be deemed that he has no explanation to offer.

(d) Pending enquiry into the charges provided for in sub-rules (a)

and (b) above the Council may suspend a member of