LexBARADAKANTA MISHRA versus MR. JUSTICE GATIKRUSHNA MISHRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
524 BARADAKANTA MISHRA ~. MR. JUSTICE GATIKRUSHNA MISHRA June 21, 1974 [D. G. PALEKAR, P. N. BHAGWATI, AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.) Contempt of Cc1'rt Act, 1971--Sec. 19(1) lvhere the Court rejects a niotion or a reference and declines to initiate a prodeeding for contempt, can such a deciisidn be regarded as "a decision in the exercise of its jurisdiotion Y\Ji punish for contempt, The appellant, a member of the Judicial service of Orissa was promoted as Addi. District and Sessions Judge on 31st July, 1968. but on 30th March, 1972 he was suspended by the High Court as a disciplinary enquiry wa:! decided to be started against him. On 29th April, 1972 the appellant was charge-sheeted and wa. called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. ln the meantime the appellant appealed to the Governor, complainin& a,aaimt tbe order of suspeiision and requesting him to cancel the order of suspension on the ground that it was <>ut.side the authority of the High Court. The High Court withheld the appeal of the appellant and refused to forward it to the Governor since in its opinion, no appeal lay to the Governor against an order of suspension _pa_ssed by the High Court. The appellant. thereafter __ f.Qrwarded directly a representation to tho Governor with a copy to the High Court and by this representation be moved the Governor to transfer the disciplinary enquiry against him to the Admini· strative Tribunal. 'fhere were several submissions ma<le in this representation Which scandalised the Higb Court and tended to lower its prestige etc. The High Court therefore, suo motu, issued a notice dated 3rd July, 1972 calling upon the appellant to show cause .why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. The notice eet out the passages from the representation made by the appellant and the proceedj,ng for cOntempt initiated by thi! notice was Criminal Misc. case No. 8 of 1972. The appellant appeared in answer to the notice and ra~ed several con- tentions. One of the contentions was that whatever he had said in regard to the Judges of the High Court in the representation was in regard to their conduct in the Qiscbarge of administrative functions and not judicial functions and therfore, it did not amount to contempt of Court. The appellant pleaded before the Full Bench that this Contention should be tried as preliminary issue, but the Full Bench rejected the plea of the appellant The appellant there- upon, preferred a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court and in this vetition the appellant once again made submissions which prima facie ap&ared to be criminal contempt of court. The petition wrut rejected by this Hon'ble Court, but the High Court, taking note of the objectionable submissions con .. tained in the petition, issued a supplementary notice dated 5th January. 1973 to the appellant to show cause why he should not be punished for havinJ committed contempt of Court by publishing such statements. The Full Bench, thereafter heard the proceedinl!l! for contempt on tht charges contained in both the not;ces and beld the appellant guilty of con ... tempt of Court and sentenced him to two months' simple imprisonment. In the mean while, the displinary enquiry instituted against the appellant was entrusted to a sing-le judge and the learned Judge submitted his re-port 1\Dding the appellant guilty of all the charges, except charge No. 4(a). The High Court considered the report at a full Court meeting and thereafter iS5ued show cause notice caUing upon the appcUant to show cause why ha •hould not be reduced to the rank of Addi. District Magistrate_ Judicial. The appeUant was granted personal hearing and after considering the explana- tion given by him the High Court found the appellant guilty of the charse1 except charge 4(a) and reduced him to the rank of AD.M., Judicial. A B c D E F G H A B c 0 E F G H B. MISHRA V. JUSTICE MISHRA 525 The appellant took the view that some of the issues arising in the dis- ciplinary enquiry were the same as those arising in the proceeding for con· tempt which was pending against him and the decision of thOSe issues by the High Court on the administrative side in the course of the disciplinary enquiry~ amounted to pre-judging these issues in the proceeding for contem1>t which was a judicial proceeding and the Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court who decided
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.