P. ROYCHAUDHURI Vs. J. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a practising Advocate is aggrieved by certain personal remarks recorded by the CIC in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 in WP(C) 2813/2016, in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the impugned order dated 29.03.2016 in WP(C) 3077/2016 and in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the impugned order dated 29.03.2016 in WP(C) 3078/2016, wherein it is recorded by the CIC that the petitioner (Advocate) who was representing the public authority had come alone without the complete official records and no one either the CPIO or FAA accompanied him. The CIC has further recorded that earlier also the petitioner generally appeared alone without the official records and that he is not fit to discharge his duties under the Advocates Act.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not practically possible for the CPIO and the FAA to personally attend the hearing of each matter. The petitioner who was representing the authority was present in court and was carrying the case file in a digital form on his laptop.

(3.) It is submitted that the impugned directions against the petitioner were not passed on the ground that the petitioner was not in a position to render assistance to the court but the CIC has gone on the premise that the petitioner was not carrying physical paper in his hand and was not accompanied with the CPIO and FAA. In these circumstances, the CIC has passed the impugned orders making personal observations about the advocate and banning him from appearance and directing the Government to appoint another advocate. He submits that even the impugned order records that the counsel was heard at length.