Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
( Delivered by Hon. Rakesh Tiwari,J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 passed by respondent no.1- Advocate General, U.P. Allahabad whereby he has refused to grant permission for filing Contempt Petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against respondent no.2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, presently posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai.
3. The relevant findings recorded in the impugned order 25.1.2016 by the Advocate General read thus:-
" After going through the said report, in my opinion it is crystal clear that the incident had not taken place in the manner as alleged in the present application and as such there is no relevant material on record to support the allegation as contained in the application. The applicant in order to substantiate his allegation has relied upon certain statements which are part of the inquiry report but the report itself is speaking against the applicant.
The Special Officer (Vigilance ) in his detailed report has given clear finding that the act of the applicant is contemptuous and as such the proceeding for contempt of Court against the applicant and other advocates should be drawn. Further, the High Court of Allahabad has been pleased to issue contempt notices to the applicant.
After considering the entire material as brought on record by the applicant I am of the view that PRIMA FACIE the allegation as contained in the application had already been exhaustively inquired into by Special Officer(Vigilance) High Court, Allahabad and were found untrue, moreover, the Special Officer (Vigilance) has only recommended the proceedings of Contempt against the applicant. There is nothing on record to show that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla being Judicial Officer has continuously committed contempt of Court from the date of his joining. Accordingly, no case of criminal contempt is made out against the opposite party and permission for filing the contempt petition before the High Court is hereby refused."
4. Brief facts of the case are that immediately after joining in the District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai respondent no.2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District Judge started misbehavior with the Advocates, litigants and even with his staff. The District Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as "the Bar Association") made a complaint before the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and started agitation against him and took a decision for strike on account of abolition of morning courts and in its letter dated 25.4.2014 the Bar Association again reiterated its previous complaint against respondent no.2, which was sent to the Registrar General of this Court. On 18.10.2014 the Advocates made several complaints against his misbehaviour from time to time and the Bar Association also apprised the District Judge about his conduct and when he was not transferred, the Bar Association vide its resolution took a decision to boycott his court w.e.f. 20.10.2014 until he is not transferred. It is stated that on 20.11.2014 a meeting of General Body of the District Bar Association was called and it took decision to boycott all the courts w.e.f. 21.11.2014 but no action was taken by the High Court against respondent no.2. The office bearers of the Bar Association had informed the District Judge about the aforesaid resolution on 20.11.2014 and when the delegations of the Bar Association were going to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaluan at Orai about aforesaid resolution, respondent no.2 along with his Gunner and PAC Constables came out of his Court and started abusing the Advocates and ordered his gunner & Constables to beat the Advocates. The petitioner immediately tried to inform the High Court through fax but he was instructed by the fax receiver to send a complaint through District Judge concerned.
5. It appears that in the mean time, respondent no.2 sent following SMS to Hon'ble Administrative Judge.
" Respected Lordship, Today at 12.45 P.M. Advocate Pradumn Kumar Srivastava, President of Bar and his colleagues attacked on Court and beaten me and the D.J. Is not taking any action."
It was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice. His Lordship Hon'ble the Chief Justice has ordered for making spot enquiry by the Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad, who after recording the statements of Advocates, respondent no.2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and statements of staff of the District Judgeship submitted his Inquiry report on 17.12.2014.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 15(1) (a) & (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act before respondent no.1- Advocate General, U.P. to make a motion before the High Court for taking action against respondent no.2 or to grant consent to him to approach the High Court for taking action against respondent no.2 for committing gross criminal contempt of his own Court as well as for scandalizing the Court of the then District Judge by making baseless allegation of corruption against him. Respondent no.1-Advocate General fixed 2.11.2015 for hearing in the matter on which date the petitioner appeared before respondent no.1 but the Advocate General had neither made a motion against respondent no.2 nor granted consent in writing to the petitioner to prosecute him for committing gross criminal contempt. After hearing the matter, the Court was of the view that Rule 3(4) of the Rules as framed under Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules has travelled beyond the statutory provisions and is, therefore, not sustainable to that extent and issued notice to the Advocate General as well as to the Rule framing authority to show cause as to why aforesaid Rule 3(4) may not be read down. Further, the Court while issuing notice to the Advocate General and this Court through Registrar General asked respondent no.2 to explan as to why cognizance may not be taken against him. When the matter was again taken up on 9.12.2015, the Court further granted time to respondent no.1 as well as Registrar General of this Court to file a response pursuant to order dated 17.11.2015. When no response was filed on behalf of the Advocate General and the Registrar General of this Court, the Court passed the following order on 6.1.2016.
" One last opportunity is afforded to the State as well as to the Registrar General to file their response as per the order dated of Court dated 17.11.2015 positively by 27.1.2016.
List on 27.1.2006.
It is made clear that if response is not received on or before the date fixed, the Court shall proceed with the matter in the absence thereof."
It is stated that on 27.1.2016 a short affidavit on behalf of Advocate General was served upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner annexing a copy of the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 whereby he has refused to grant permission to the petitioner for filing the Contempt Petition before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Advocate General did not fix any further date of hearing in the matter the petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Contempt Application No. 46 of 2015 under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of Chapter XXX-E of the Rules of the Court read with Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action suo-moto against respondent no.2 and to punish him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing gross criminal contempt of his own Court on 20.11.2014 and for obtaining signature of Court Moharrir Abir Singh under threat and for scandalizing the Court of the then District Judge in his statement dated 26.11.2014 by levelling baseless allegation of corruption against him.
8. He also submits that since the Court has initiated proceedings against respondent no. 2 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the application dated 20.10.2015 pending before the Advocate General has rendered infructuous and there was no occasion for the Advocate General to refuse permission to the petitioner for filing contempt petition before this Court.
9. He further submits that the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 passed by the Advocate General is without jurisdiction and against the evidence on record as this Court vide order dated 17.11.2015 has already initiated proceedings for contempt on the application filed by the petitioner. The order impugned is an exparte order as it has been passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing. While passing the impugned order, Advocate General has completely lost sight to the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, hence the impugned order cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the Court has already issued notice for criminal contempt against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Advocate General had no authority to sit over the order passed by this Court.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon following findings recorded by the Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad submits that respondent no.2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Addl. District being a Judicial Officer has acted in a manner which was lowered the dignity of the Court and amounts to an interference in judicial proceedings.
" Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla lying 7-8 hours in his chamber. The employees of his Court have no courage to put up any case or application before him. Sri Shukla also misbehaved with his employees. He appears to be a patient of psychiatry, he at random agitated and conducted as such.
E.W. 38 found Sri Shukla talking with himself. Therefore, support of medical treatment is required for him. It is in his interest that he should not continue further at the judgeship Jalaun at Orai.
It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses and fact and circumstances that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla after attack on him get down from the dais and abused learned advocates who entered in the Court room. Meanwhile, advocates gripped him and dragged towards verandah outside his Court and manhandled and abused him also. Thus, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those advocates."
11. On a query made by the Court from the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to whether this matter is under consideration by the larger Bench of this Court, he has specifically denied this fact.
12. Per contra Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondents relying upon the Inquiry report submitted by the Special Officer (Vigilance), High Court, Allahabad submits that notice has been issued against the applicant only for the limited purpose. He has supported the impugned order passed by the Advocate General and submits that advocates entered in the Court room of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla forcefully and attacked him on 20.11.2014 at about 12.45 p.m. on him while he was sitting on the dais. The Presiding Officer has named the petitioner along with Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam, General Secretary and its members who abused him, shouted slogans and assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer, pen holder and beaten him up. The Advocate General has rightly refused to grant permission for filing contempt petition against respondent no.2 before this Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Advocate General, hence no interference is required by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. The relevant findings recorded by the Special Officer (Vigilance) read thus:-
" On the basis of these facts and circumstances inference may be drawn safely that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has facilitated learned advocates to carry on boycott of judicial work of his court, during the period from 20.10.2014 up to 20.11.2014 and to commit incident on these dates.
It is pertinent to mention here that Registrar (Confidential) has informed me vide his letter dated 10.12.2014 that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has sent his letter no.409/XV dated 24.4.2014 and its subsequent letter no. 487/1 dated 12.05.2014 against Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Judge (E.C.Act,) Jalaun at Orai, which has been placed before Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Jalaun at Orai through the office note dated 23.5.2014 and the concerned file is still under submission.
It is also informed thereafter Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has sent another letter no. 638/XV dated 28.06.2014 furnishing therewith detailed inquiry report containing fifteen enclosures in continuation to his earlier letter no. 409/XV dated 24.4.2014 regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Judge, Jalaun at Orai and disruption of work for his action, which has also been submitted before the Hon'ble the Administrative Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 11.07.2014. The concerned files are still under submission before the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Jalaun at Orai for orders.
Therefore, I could not peruse the inquiry report dated 28.06.2014 and letter no. 409 dated 24.04.2014 submitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then District Judge, Jalaun at Orai, regarding misbehaviour and working style of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. The Senior Administrative Officer of the Judgeship Jalaun at Orai had also not provided to me copies of this inquiry report and letter during the course of inquiry at Judgeship Jalaun. Learned advocates conveyed me about this inquiry that their statements were recorded by the then District Judge during the course of this inquiry.
The learned advocates had passed resolution on 27.11.2014 and withdrawn strike on resolution to conduct judicial work from 29.11.2014.
Work & Conduct of Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President of the District Bar Association:-
It is relevant to mention here that Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in T.A. (Civil) no.501 of 2014, Applicant Krishna Dass @ Nanu Maheshwari Vs. Bhagwan Dass & Ors has been pleased to issue notice to Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President " to file his reply clarifying as to in what circumstances and what capacity, he issued letter dated 20.09.2014 and shall also show cause as to why further action of professional misconduct and causing interference in administration of justice and thereby committing contempt of Court be not initiated against him."
The report is humbly submitted, accordingly.
With deep deference and profound"
14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the advocates barged in the Court room of respondent no.2, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla attacked him on 20.11.2014 at about 12.45 p.m. while he was holding Court. Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has named Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President of the District Bar Association, Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam, General Secretary and its members S/Sri Gyanendra Singh, Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath Dass Bishnoi, Yusuf Ishtiyaq who abused him and shouted slogans as well as assaulted/beaten him threw CPU of computer, pen holder at him also.
15. Special Officer (Vigilance) after viewing video recording produced by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has recorded a finding that Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the President as well as Sri Arvind Kumar Gautam,General Secretary of the District Bar Association along with 10-15 advocates had barged in the Court room of the Officer and not only created ruckus but also ransacked the dais of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Addl. District Judge; that the advocates had thrown the C.P.U. of computer & pen holder towards Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Addl. District Judge. The table glass and pen holders were found scattered. The rear side of the computer kept on the dais damaged.
16. The witnesses stated during the inquiry that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla got down from the dais and the advocates caught hold of him and was dragged to the door thereafter in the verandah they assaulted him. When the constables tried to save him they were also assaulted due to which the Court Moharrir and Constables have also sustained injuries on their persons. Reader of Court no.3, Orderly and employees of the Court had also supported the aforesaid statements. The Special Officer (Vigilance) has recorded a finding that the act of the petitioner is contemptuous and as such the proceedings for contempt of Court against the petitioner and other advocates should be drawn. He had exhaustively inquired into the allegations against the Officer concerned which were found untrue. There is nothing on record to indicate that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, Addl. District Judge being Judicial Officer had committed any contempt of Court from the date of his joining, hence the Advocate General has rightly refused to grant permission for filing contempt petition before this Court.
17. In the circumstances, we see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, hence no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
18. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated 8.3.2016 CPP/-