Site icon SCC Times

Orissa HC initiates contempt case against former constable and his advocate questioning partiality of two Judges in Full Bench

Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court

Orissa High Court: The Full Bench of the Court comprising of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice, Savitri Ratho and S.S. Mishra, JJ. while taking suo motu cognizance of the preliminary objections raised against the constitution of Full Bench initiated a contempt case against the present petitioner/ deponent of the affidavit and the advocate who filed the affidavit.

A preliminary objection was raised against the constitution of the Full Bench by way of an affidavit, stating that-

It is quite unethical and unreasonable that the Judges who differed from the earlier view of a Division Bench have been represented in the Larger Bench constituted on 17-12-2024 for adjudication of the matter. That as the two Judges of Larger Bench have already disagreed with the view of the earlier Division Bench, their presence in the Full Bench will be a hindrance for an independent and open mind hearing. The point of law/question of law referred to be determined cannot be fair and unbiased. That, in this premises, the view of a third Judge will be immaterial as the disagreed view of the two judges will prevail. It is just like loosing of the case by the sole respondent is preordained.

That, for the ends of justice, equity and fair as well as merit disposal of the point of law, none of the constituting member of Judges be part of larger Bench because constituting the large bench with any member of earlier or later bench will not be fair for merit disposal or independent adjudication. Hence, it is humbly prayed that the Larger Bench may kindly be reconstituted taking purely new Judges who have no preconceived notion or legal reasoning regarding the matter.”

The Bench noted that the said affidavit was filed through an advocate practising in the High Court. The Court viewed that the said preliminary objections constituted “criminal contempt” of Court within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Bench directed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the deponent of the said affidavit and also, against the Advocate, through whom the affidavit was filed. The Bench permitted the contemnors to file a show-cause reply as to why they should not be held guilty and duly punished for committing Criminal Contempt of the Court.

Genesis

In interpreting the provisions of the Rules 824, 835, and 837 of the Police Manual, the Full Bench of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack laid down that the black mark value contained in Rule 835(1) does not have effect upon expiry of period for which the reduction, forfeiture or withholding has been imposed. In such cases the “black mark” shall not remain permanently under Rule — 837 (1). Further the “black mark’ shall remain permanently under Rule 837 if it is awarded separately as a punishment prescribed in clause (f) of Rule 824.

In Rule 824 of the Odisha Police Manual, ‘black mark’ or ‘marks’ is one of the punishments prescribed.

The Division Bench, in appeal viewed that this matter deserves to be placed before the Full Bench to decide the following questions :

  1. Whether the opinion recorded by the tribunal to the effect that the value contained in Rule 835 does not have effect upon expiry of period for which reduction/forfeiture or withholding is imposed and in such cases the black marks shall not remain permanently under Rule 837 (1) in view of clear stipulation in Rule 837(1) that the black marks shall remain permanently on record and be taken into consideration in deciding the nature and extent of subsequent punishment.

  2. Whether the view taken by the Division Bench in the order dated 01-03-2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.13624 of 2014, affirming the aforesaid opinion of the Tribunal was legally correct.

[State of Odisha v. Manoj Kumar Bal, W.A. No.2491 of 2023, decided on: 08-01-2025]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Saswat Dash, AGA

For the respondent: Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan, Advocate

Exit mobile version