'Contemptuous Conduct': Calcutta High Court Warns Ex-Judicial Officer Of Aggravated Contempt For Remarks Against Judge

The Calcutta High Court has warned a discharged judicial officer that any future use of “unconscionable” and inappropriate language against a judicial officer or a court could be treated as an act of aggravated contempt if contempt proceedings are initiated against him.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Rajender Kumar Dudeja against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in proceedings concerning disciplinary action against him.

The Bench took exception to the language used in the memorandum of appeal, particularly the allegation that the Single Judge, being an Additional Judge whose confirmation was in the hands of the High Court administration, could not hear the matter advantageously.

“We find the above conduct of the Judicial Officer to be an attempt to resort to forum shopping for avoiding the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order. Such conduct is contemptuous,” the Court observed.

The Bench noted that it had been about to issue a contempt notice to Dudeja. However, his counsel submitted that he would tender an unconditional apology and would refrain from using such intemperate language in future. The Court granted a pass-over to enable him to prepare an affidavit of apology.

After the matter was taken up again, Dudeja tendered an unconditional apology by way of an affidavit dated October 13, 2026. Taking the affidavit on record, the Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against him.

The Bench, however, cautioned that if Dudeja resorted to similar language in any future proceedings before any court, the present order could be taken into account by the concerned court or authority if contempt proceedings were initiated.

The Court stated:

“If in future, in any proceeding before any Court, the Appellant / Judicial Officer, Shri Rajender Kumar Dudeja, resorts to the use of such language, which is unconscionable and cannot be countenanced, qua a judicial officer or the Court, this order would be taken into account by the concerned Court/Authority if Contempt of Court proceedings are initiated and his conduct would be treated as an act of aggravated contempt.”

Background

Dudeja had challenged an interlocutory order dated September 11, 2026, passed by a Single Judge in WPO No. 101 of 2025, arising from disciplinary proceedings against him.

During the appeal, his counsel argued that the matter ought to have been heard by a Division Bench, purportedly on the basis of a convention. The High Court administration, however, submitted that the Single Judge had directed the filing of an affidavit and production of the enquiry records to facilitate a fair hearing.

The Division Bench noted that previous Single Benches had commenced hearing the matter pursuant to roster assignments, but the arguments had never concluded and the matter had not been reserved for judgment. The Single Judge had subsequently given reasons for proceeding with the matter in accordance with the roster.

The Bench further observed that Dudeja had not expressed any lack of confidence in the Single Judge during the hearing before him. Nor had any conflict of judicial opinion or provision of the Original Side Rules been cited to justify referring the matter to a Division Bench.

“We do not find that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order,” the Court held.

The Bench also reproduced several grounds in the appeal that it considered objectionable, including allegations concerning judicial discipline, the Single Judge's status as an Additional Judge, and an alleged conflict of interest arising from the seniority of the judge who had acted as the enquiry officer.

Describing the language used in the grounds as “most disrespectful”, the Court expressed shock at the manner in which the discharged judicial officer had drafted them. It also noted that his counsel had certified the grounds in the memorandum of appeal.

In view of the unconditional apology and the withdrawal of the unwarranted contentions from the memorandum of appeal, the Bench declined to issue a contempt notice and dismissed the appeal. The connected interim application, if any, was also disposed of.

Case No: APO/67/2026

Case: RAJENDER KUMAR DUDEJA v HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ANR