Orissa HC Initiates Contempt Action Against Ex-Constable & His Advocate For Questioning Impartiality Of Judges In Full Bench

The Orissa High Court on Wednesday initiated action for criminal contempt against an ex-constable and his Advocate for casting aspersions on impartiality of two Judges sitting on a Full Bench.The Full Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Justice Savitri Ratho and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra found the preliminary objection of the respondent to be prima facie contemptuous and held –“We are of the prima facie view that the averments made in the aforementioned paragraphs 2 to 5 of the preliminary objection constitute “Criminal Contempt” of Court within the meaning of Section 2 (C) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We take suo motu cognizance of the same.”Case Background The respondent was working as a Constable in the Odisha Police. By invoking provisions under the Odisha Police Manual, more particularly, Rules 824, 834, 835 and 836 thereof, he was dismissed from service as a punishment for accumulating certain numbers of 'black marks' in his service record. Being aggrieved by such removal from service, the respondent had earlier approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal impugning the termination order. The Tribunal, after examining the facts against the backdrop of Rules, had therein held as follows – “Thus we answer that the black mark value contained in Rule 835 (1) does not have effect 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.”The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was put to challenge before a Division Bench of the High Court, which did not find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and accordingly, the same was upheld.The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave to appeal. The top Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay/laches, keeping the questions of law open.While taking up hearing of the case last year, a Division Bench of Chief Justice CS Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho had noted that under Rule 824 of the Odisha Police Manual, 'black mark' or 'marks' is one of the punishments prescribed and Rule 834 provided about imposition of black marks.The Court had, thereafter, referred to Rules 835 and 836 of the Manual which lay down the effect of black mark. It had observed that Rule 837(1) states that the black marks shall remain permanently on record and be taken into consideration in deciding the nature and extent of subsequent punishment.The aforesaid view, the Bench had observed, is in tandem with Sub Rule (2) of Rule 837 which requires the punishing authority to specify in the order awarding black marks, the number of black marks outstanding against the delinquent.Therefore, as a result of such interpretation, the Division Bench was reluctant to accept the conclusion reached by the Tribunal which had held that the 'black mark' shall not remain permanently under Rule 837(1) in case of award of reduction in rank, forfeiture or withholding of service benefits. As the view of the Tribunal was upheld by a previous Division Bench of the High Court, the later Division Bench had no other option but to refer the matter to a larger Bench i.e. Full Bench for final decision on the disputed questions of law. Present ControversyPursuant to the referral order, the Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench comprising of himself as well as Justices Ratho and Mishra. A preliminary objection was filed by the respondent against the composition of the Bench. The written objection, inter alia, read as follows:“2. That, it is quite unethical and unreasonable that the Hon'ble 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. 3. That as the two Hon'ble 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. 4. 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.” Thus, the respondent had sought for fresh constitution of the Full Bench excluding the Chief Justice and Justice Ratho as members of the same, since they were the parts of the Division Bench which had disagreed with the views of the earlier Division Bench and had referred the matter to the Full Bench for adjudication.Suspicion was raised on behalf of the respondent that presence of two Judges, who had already heard and decided his case in a particular manner, shall be a 'hindrance' in independent adjudication of the questions...

Orissa HC Initiates Contempt Action Against Ex-Constable & His Advocate For Questioning Impartiality Of Judges In Full Bench

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags