RAI SUDHAKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts stated in this writ Application and those that have been discovered in the course of the proceeding disclose a very sad state of affairs, and we are constrained to observe that if members of the bar do no discharge their duties with the high sense of responsibility which is expected of them, and do not take care to set to it that no statement is made at the off which may be found to be factually incorrect, the court may be pursuaded to pass an unjust order on the basis of factually wrong statement made at the Bar. It appears that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9758 of 1992 proceeded to pass an order on 14.5.93 under the impression that the Petitioner in that writ petition had been proceeded against in a departmental proceeding which was pending inquiry. The relevant part of [be order is as follows:

(3.) It is quite clear, therefore, that a specific representation was made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State that a departmental proceeding had already been initiated against the Petitioner and certain alterations in the charges were also made. The statement is specific and permits of no ambiguity.