The Orissa High Court has initiated criminal contempt proceedings against a former police constable and his legal representative for alleging bias against two judges on a Full Bench. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Justice Savitri Ratho, and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, determined that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents contained statements that prima facie amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
The respondent, formerly serving as a constable in the Odisha Police, was dismissed from service under specific provisions of the Odisha Police Manual, particularly Rules 824, 834, 835, and 836. His dismissal was due to the accumulation of 'black marks' in his service record, which are indicative of misconduct or infractions.
Challenging his termination, the respondent approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, contesting the validity of the dismissal order. The Tribunal examined the relevant rules and concluded that black marks imposed as punishments under Rule 835(1) do not retain their effect after the expiration of the period for which penalties like reduction, forfeiture, or withholding have been imposed. However, if a black mark is awarded separately as a punishment under clause (f) of Rule 824, it remains permanently on record as per Rule 837(1).
Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's decision, the respondent escalated the matter to a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, finding no error in its conclusions. Subsequently, the respondent sought relief from the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay and laches but left the legal questions unresolved.
Proceedings Leading to Contempt Action
In a subsequent hearing, the Division Bench of Chief Justice C.S. Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho reviewed the case, focusing on the relevant rules of the Odisha Police Manual concerning the imposition and effect of black marks. The Bench noted that Rule 824 lists black marks as a form of punishment, while Rule 834 outlines the procedure for their imposition. Rules 835 and 836 detail the consequences of receiving black marks, and Rule 837(1) specifies that black marks awarded as separate punishments remain permanently on an officer's record and are considered in future disciplinary decisions.
During these proceedings, the respondent and his advocate submitted preliminary objections that questioned the impartiality of two judges on the Full Bench. The objections insinuated bias, thereby challenging the judges' integrity and the judiciary's independence. The Full Bench found these allegations to be prima facie contemptuous, as they appeared to undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
Legal Basis for Contempt Proceedings
The court's decision to initiate contempt proceedings is grounded in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
By alleging bias without substantive evidence, the respondent and his advocate's statements were deemed to potentially scandalize the court and impede the administration of justice, thereby meeting the criteria for criminal contempt.
Implications of the Contempt Proceedings
The initiation of contempt proceedings underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining its integrity and authority. Allegations that question the impartiality of judges without credible evidence can erode public trust in the legal system. The Orissa High Court's actions serve as a reminder that while individuals have the right to seek redress and challenge decisions, such challenges must be made respectfully and within the bounds of the law.
The outcome of these contempt proceedings will likely reinforce the standards of conduct expected from litigants and legal practitioners, emphasizing that the judiciary's independence and impartiality are paramount and must be protected against unfounded allegations.
In conclusion, the Orissa High Court's decision to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the former constable and his advocate highlights the serious implications of making unsubstantiated allegations against the judiciary. It reflects the court's dedication to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the administration of justice remains untainted by baseless claims of bias or partiality.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.