STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in this case is a Barrister of England and an Advocate of this Court. He was appointed to officiate as third Assistant to the Court Receiver and Liquidator in August 1949. His work was not found to be satisfactory. On 30-1-1954, Dr. Banaji, the Court Receiver and Liquidator, made a report to the Honourable the Chief Justice against the conduct of the respondent in connection with a tool box containing a complete kit for repairing air conditioning machines etc. This box belonged to a firm which the Court Receiver sold as a going concern in 1951. The box was found laying in the respondent's room till as late as 1954. The report was considered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Coyajee as the Administrative Judge and by the Honourable the Chief Justice. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice disapproved of the conduct of the respondent and severely warned him to be more careful about his work in future. His Lordship directed the Court Receiver and Liquidator to submit a report on the general work of the respondent after 6 months. On 22-6-1954, Dr. Banaji as the Court Receiver and Liquidator submitted a report. In that report he stated that the respondent continued to neglect his work on one pretext or another and took casual leave on flimsy grounds. The respondent went on leave out of India from 10-3-1954 and went to Japan, After returning from Japan, he saw the Honourable the Chief Justice at his residence and stated that he had some grievances. His Lordship informed the respondent that if he had any complaints to make, he should make them in the proper form and through the proper channel and that the complaints would then be considered. No such complaint was forwarded through the proper channel. The respondent was thereafter appointed to officiate as an Associate in the Prothonotary's office from 25-9-1954. On 31-1-1955 the respondent saw the Prothonotary and stated that he had. some grievances. He was asked to put his grievances in writing and was told that they would thereafter be considered and dealt with. Thereupon he stated that he had no grievances. On 19-2-1955 the respondent addressed a letter to the Honourable the Chief Justice in which he thanked His Lordship for transferring him to the Prothonotary's office and tendered his sincere apology for having annoyed His Lordship in various ways. The respondent gave an assurance that he would carry out his duties sincerely and honestly and abide by His Lordship's orders whatever they were.

(2.) ON 21-6-1955 the respondent applied for leave for two months on medical grounds and the leave was granted. Whilst the respondent was on leave, he addressed two letters, one dated 15-7-1955 to Mr. Justice Coyajee as officiating Chief Justice and another dated 22-7-1955 to the permanent Chief Justice. Both these letters contained objectionable material. After considering the letters the Honourable the Chief Justice ordered that a disciplinary inquiry be held against the respondent. The respondent was suspended from service and Mr. Justice Tendolkar was requested to hold the inquiry. That was on 10-8-1955. On 17-8-1955 the respondent tendered his resignation from service and the same was accepted.

(3.) ON 4-2-1958 the respondent circulated a cyclostyled document dated 3-2-1958 among the members of the Bar in the premises of the High Court and among the members of the public outside the Council Hall, where the Honourable the Chief Justice was holding a public inquiry pursuant to a Commission appointed by the Central Government popularly known as the Mundhra Inquiry. That document contains objectionable material. In respect of the matter contained in that document the present petition has been filed for the issue of a rule against the respondent to show cause, if any, why he should not be committed to jail and or be otherwise dealt with for having committed contempt of Court by issuing the said document. On 7-2-1958 myself and my brother Justice Mody issued a rule against the respondent.