Appeal No 176 of 1956 and Petition No 165 of 1955
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 15231955 of the Orissa High Court in Civil Reference No 4 of 1954 169 N C Chatterji D N Mukherjee and R Patinaik for the appellant
Porus A Mehta and R H Dhebar for respondent No 1 1956
November 29
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SK DAS J
The appellant is Shri Lalit Mohan Das a pleader of about 25 years  standing
who ordinarily practiced in the Courts at Anandapur in the district of Mayur bhanj in Orissa
The Munsif of Anandapur one Shri L B N section Deo  drew up a proceeding under sections 13 and 14 of the  against the pleader for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and submitted a report to the High Court through the District Judge of Mayurbhanj on December 12 1953
The District Judge forwarded the report accompanied by his opinion to the High Court of Orissa on March 9 1954
The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be suspended from practice for one year
The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa  and by its order dated March 15 1955 the High Court came to the conclusion that the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of five years with
effect from March 151955 Shri Lalit Mohan Das then obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated March 15 23 1955
He also filed a petition under article 32 of the Constitution
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition under article 32 and nothing more need be said about it
We proceed now to deal with the appeal which has been brought to this Court on special leave
The charges against the appellant were the following On July 15 1953 the appellant was appearing on behalf of the defendant in Suit No 81 of 1952 pending before the Munsif of Anandapur
On that date there were two other suits pending before the same Munsif
There were petitions for time in all the three suits
22 170 The Munsif wanted to take up the oldest suit for hearing and the oldest suit being Suit No 54 of 1952 it was taken up first and five witnesses for the plaintiff were examined
Suit No 81 of 1952 was postponed to August 18 1953
The appellant who appeared for the defendant in that suit was informed of the postponement
When so informed the appellant made a remark in open Court and within the hearing of the Munsif to this effect  If the Peshkar is gained over he can do everything He then left the Court
The Munsif was surprised at the remark made and asked the appellant to explain his conduct by means of a letter sent the same day
As the appellant sent no reply the Munsif wrote again to the appellant on July 18 1953
To this letter the appellant sent the following reply Dear Sir I am painfully constrained to receive memo after memo for some imaginary act of mine not in any way connected with my affairs for which if any explanation is at all warranted officiallv
For your second memo I felt it desirable as a gentleman to reply
Further I may request you to be more polite while addressing letters to lawyers
Yours faithfully Sd
L M Das
Pleader
 It is obvious that the letter of the appellant was couched in very improper terms and considerably strained the relation between the Munsif and the appellant
The appellant it may be stated here was at that time the President of the Anandapur Sub Divisional Bar Association which consisted of about 14 legal practitioners
On July 21 1953 Shri B Raghava Rao who was the predecessor in office of Shri Deo came to Anandapur
He was the guest of Shri A V Ranga Rao the Sub Divisional Officer
One Shri N C Mohanty a pleader of
Anandapur and who was related to the appellant came to invite the two Munsifs to a luncheon on the occasion of a housewarming ceremony
On hearing about the trouble between Shri Deo 171 and the appellant Shri B Raghava Rao interceded and it appears that the appellant was persuaded to come to the house of the Sub Divisional officer and to say that he was sorry for what had happened in court on July 15 1953 and that he did not happean to insult Shri Deo Shri Deo it appears accepted the apology and for the time being
the trouble between the two was smoothed over
A second incident however took place on September 25 1953
The appellant was appearing for a defendant in another suit before the Munsif It was Suit No 101 of 1952
This suit was fixed for hearing on September 21 1953
As that date was a holiday the suit was taken up on September 22 1953
Another suit Suit No 86 of 1952 was also fixed for hearing on that date but Shri N C Mohanty pleader for the defendants in that suit took time on the ground of the illness of one of the defendants which ground was supported by a medical certificate
In Suit No 101 of 1952 also the defendants applied for time
on the ground of illness of their witnesses but there being no medical certificate in support of the allegation of illness and no witnesses having been summoned in that suit the learned Munsif refused to grant time and one Shri P N Patnaik who also represented the defendants agreed to go on with the suit
The suit was then heard for two days i e on September 22 and 23 1953 and at the request of the defendants  lawyers the hearing of arguments was postponed to September 25 1953
On that date the appellant came to Court accompanied by his junior Shri P N Patnaik for the purpose of arguing the case on behalf of the defendants
At the very outset of his arguments the appellant made the follwing remarksThe Court is unfair to me while the Court was fair to Mr Misra meaning Shri Bhagabat Prasad Misra who was appearing for the plaintiffs in that suit
The Court is accommodating and granting adjournments to Mr Misra while it was not accommodating me
The Munsif took objection to these remarks but nothing untoward happened
The appellant concluded his arguments
172 A third incident brought matters to a climax and this incident took place on September 29 1953
The appellant was appearing for the defendants in Suit No 6 of 1951
In that suit a preliminary point of jurisdiction and sufficiency of court fees was raised and Shri B Raghava Rao the predecessor in office of Shri Deo had dealt with the point and decided it against the appellant s client
A Civil Revision taken to the High Court was also rejected The appellant however again pressed the same preliminary point and on September
29 1953 Shri Deo passed an order dismissing the preliminary objection
When this order was shown to the appellant he stood up and shouted at the top of his voice I I on behalf of the Bar Association Anandapur challenge the order of the Court
The Court has no principle as it is passing one kind of order in one suit and another kind of order in another suit
 The Munsif it appears was disgusted at the conduct of the appellant and he stood up and left the Court room directing the bench clerk to send a telegram to the District Judge
 A telegram was accordingly sent to the District Judge asking him to come to Anandapur
The District Judge asked for a detailed report which was sent on October 1 1953
On October 5 1953 the Munsif drew up a proceeding against the appellant on a charge under section 13 of the referring therein to the three incidents mentioned above
The appellant was asked to show cause by October 26 1953
On November 3 1953 the appellant denied the allegations made and took up the attitude that the Munsif was not competent to hold the enquiry on the ground that the Munsif was in the position of a complainant
The appellant gave a different version of what happened on the three dates in question
With regard to the incident of July 15 1953 the appellant s plea was that some other client had come to him
in connection with a criminal case pending in another Court and to that client the appellant had said that an enquiry should be made from the Peshkar as to the date fixed
With regard to the incident on September 25 1953 the plea of the appellant was total denial and with regard to the last incident the appellant said 173 that the Munsif behaved rudely and wanted to  assault the appellant for which the appellant appears to have filed a petition to the Governor of Orissa on September 30 1953 for according sanction for the prosecution of the Munsif
It may be stated here that on October 8 1953 a resolution was passed numbered Resolution 6 which purported to be a resolution on behalf of the Bar Association Anandapur
The resolution was in these termis Resolved that on September 29 1953 the Court s Munsif action on the
dais in rising from the chair thumping on the table shouting at the top of his voice and using the words shut up  against one honourable member President of this Bar Association is quite unprecedented
 undesirable and affecting the prestige of the Bar and may cause apprehension in the mind of the litigant public to get fair justice
 It may be stated that some other members of the Bar dissociated themselves from the a id resolution at a later date
The proceeding against the appellant under the stated as we have said earlier on October 5 1953 and the appellant filed his written statement on November 3 1953
On November 5 1953 the Munsif sent the record to the District Judge in connection with the plea of the appellant that the enquiry should be made by some other judicial officer
The District Judge however took the view that under the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the the enquiry should be made by the Munsif himself and the records were accordingly sent back to the Munsif
Thereafter the appellant non co operated and did not appear at the enquiry though more than one communication was sent to ham The enquiry was concluded on December 11 1953 and the Munsif submitted his report
the High Court through the District Judge on December 12 1953
On December 22 1953 the appellant filed an application to the Additional District Judge for time to move the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard by some other judicial officer
One month s time was 174 accordingly granted and the Additional District Judge for some reason which is not very apparent sent the record back to the learned Munsif In the meantime the Additional District Judge it appears made an effort to settle the trouble
On December 23 1953 he met the members of the Bar Association and the Munsif at the inspection bungalow at Anandapur on his way to Mayurbhanj
At a meeting held there a copy of a draft resolution to be passed by the members of the Bar Association Anandapur was made over
This draft resolution was in these terms This Association re rets very much that an incident relating to the bench clerk of the Civil Court
should have led to the subsequent unhappy differences between the Bench and the members of the Bar
As in the interest of the litigant public it is felt not desirable to allow these strained feelings to continue further this Association unanimously resolves to withdraw Resolution No 6 dated October 8 1953 passed against the Court and communicate copies of the same to the addressees previously communicated
It is further resolved to request the Court to see to the desirability of withdrawing the proceedings that had been started against the various members of the Bar and their registered clerks on their expressing regret to the Court individually in connection with those proceedings
It is further resolved that the members of the Bar involved in the proceedings be requested to take immediate steps in this direction
The Association hopes that the bench clerk who has to some extent been the cause for this friction between the Bench and the Bar would be replaced by a person from a different place at an earlier date
 On January 8 1954 the appellant appeared in the Court of the Munsif and filed a written apology and expressed his regret
His signature wag taken on the order sheet and the order of that date reads Sri L M Das pleader appears and expresses his regret
So the proceeding No 2 of 1952 is dropped
Intimate Additional District Judge
 No resolution however was passed in the terms 175 suggested by the Additional District Judge
On January 19 1954 two resolution were passed in the following terms No 1
In view of the fact that past misunderstandings between the Munsif and members of the Bar caused by an incident relating to the bench clerk of the Civil Court have been removed by amicable settlement of differences existing between both parties it is unanimously resolved that resolution No 6 dated October 8 1953 stands withdrawn
No 2
It is further resolved that the copies of the above resolution be sent to the addressees previously communicated of resolution No 6 of October 8 1953
 The learned Munsif it appears wanted to see the minute book of the Bar Association presumably to find out in what terms the proposed resolution was passed
There was again trouble between the Munsif and the appellant over the production
of the minute book
Ultimately the minute book was produced and on February 21954 the Munsif expressed the view that the resolution passed did not fully carry out the terms of settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge
Accordingly the proceeding was re opened and the record was re submitted to the District fudge
The District Judge thereupon sent the report of the Munsif to the High Court accompanied by his opinion
The High Court dealt with the report with the result which we have already indicated
The main contention of Mr N C Chatterji who has appeared on behalf of the appellant is this
He has submitted that there was no valid reason for reviving the proceeding against the appellant after the proceeding had been dropped on January 8 1954 on the submission of an apology and expression of regret by his client because in substance and effect the terms of the settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge had been complied with
According to Mr Chatterji an expression of regret having been made earlier than the passing of the resolutions on January 19 1954 by the Anandapur Bar Association and the bench clerk having already been transferred from 176 Anandapur the resolutions could not be in the same terms as were suggested by the Additional District Judge but the two resolutions passed on January 19 1954 coupled with the expression of individual regret made on January 8 1954 complied in substance with the essential terms of the draft resolution which the Additional District Judge had made over on December 23 1953
Mr Chatterji has contended that this view of the matter has not been properly considered by the High Court
He has submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Munsif himself on January 8 1954 the proceeding against the appellant should be treated as having been dropped and concluded on that date
Mr Chatterji has also drawn our attention to ground No VI in the petition for special leave dated May 9 1955 in which the appellant said that he was  willing and prepared to submit before this Court expressions of unreserved regret and apology for his error of judament and indiscretion if any in the discharge of his professional duties
 We cannot accept the contention of Mr Chatterji that the order passed by the learned Munsif on January 8 1954 had the effect of terminating and bringing to an end the proceeding against the appellant
The learned Judges of the High Court rightly pointed out that the report of the Munsif dated December 12 1953 was a report which was submitted to the High Court
Under the provisions of section 14 of the  such a report had to be forwarded to the High Court by the District Judge accompanied by his opinion
It was not open to
the Additional District Judge to send back the record to the Munsif The efforts of the Additional District Judge were indeed well intentioned but at that stage after the Munsif had made his report to the High Court the High Court alone Was competent to pass final orders in the matter
Apart however from that difficulty we are not satisfied that the terms of settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge were fully complied with in this case
It is true that the appellant did express his 177 regret and to that extent the settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge was carried out
It is also true that by the resolutions passed on January 19 1954 the earlier resolution of October 8 1953 was cancelled but one essential and important part of the terms of settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge was that the Association should express regret at what had happened
Resolution No I dated January 19 1954 was so worded as to give the impression that the misunderstanding between the Munsif and the appellant was all due to the bench clerk and that misunderstanding having been removed Resolution No 6 dated October 1953 should be withdrawn
There is nothing in the resolution to show that the appellant was in any way at fault a fault which he had expiated I by an expression of regret
It may be pointed out that the earlier resolution Resolution No 6 dated October 8 1953 had been communicated to a large number of persons and authorities and the later resolution dated January 19 1954 passed in the diluted form in which it was passed could hardly undo the damage which had been made by the earlier resolution
On merits we agree with the High Court that the appellant was undoubtedly guilty of grave professional misconduct
A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client
He may even submit that a particular order is not correct land may ask for a review of that order
At the same time a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing
He must phold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do any thing to
bring the Court itself into disrepute
The appellant before us grossly  overstepped the limits of proprieety when he made imputation of partiality and unfairiness against the Munsif in open Court
In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders the appellant was adding insult to injury because the Munsif had merely up held an order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees 23 178 which order had been upheld by the High Court in s revision
Scandalising the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice
From that point of view the conduct of the appellant was highly reprehensible
The appellant gave no evidence in support of his version of the incidents though he had an opportunity of doingso if he so desired
The only point left for consideration is the question of punishment
On a matter of this nature this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order of the High Court as respects the disciplinary action to be taken against a member of the Bar who has been guilty of professional misconduct
There are however two mitigating circumstances
One is that the learned Munsif himself recommended suspension of practice for one year only
The appellant was suspended from practice with affect from March 151955
The order of suspension has now lasted for a little more than a year and eight months
The second mitigating circumstance is that the appellant did file la written apology and expressed regret to the learned Munsif onJanuary 8 1954
It is unfortunate that the appellantdid not take up a more contrite attitude in the High Court
In this Court the appellant tried to make out that the proceeding against him should not have been revived he however showed his willingness to offer an apology and ex pression of regret Having regard to all the circumstances we think that the punishment imposed errs on the side of excess
We would accordingly reduece the period of susppusion to two years only
In the result the petition under article 32 is dismissed and the appeal isalso dismissed subject to the reduction of the period of suspension as indicated above
In the circumstances of this case there will be no order for costs


Summary:
The appellant pleader who already had strained relation with the Munsif made certain objectionable remarks in open Court suggesting partiality and unfairness on the part of the Munsif
The Munsif drew up a proceeding under sections 13 14 Of the  against the pleader and submitted a report to the High Court through the District judge
An application to the Additional District judge was filed by the pleader for time to move the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard by some judicial Officer other than the 168 Munsif who had made the report
One month s time was accordingly granted and for some reason which is not very apparent the Additional District judge sent the record back to the Munsif
The Additional District judge made an effort to settle the trouble
It was arranged that the pleader should apologise and a resolution should be passed by the members of the local Bar Association
Accordingly the pleader appeared in the Court of the Munsif and filed a written apology and expressed his regret and the Munsif dropped the proceeding
It was later found that the resolution was not passed in the terms suggested by the Additional District judge and the terms of settlement suggested by the latter were not fully carried out
Accordingly the proceeding was re opened and the report was re submitted to the District judge who with his opinion forwarded the same to the High Court
The High Court suspended the pleader for 5 years
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no valid reason for reviving the proceeding after it had once been dropped on the submission of an apology and expression of regret
Held that the report under section 14 of the is a report which is submitted to the High Court
When a report is made to the High Court by any Civil judge subordinate to the District judge the report shall be made through the District judge and the report must be accompanied by the opinion of such judge
Once the report has been made it is not open to the District judge to send back the record to the Subordinate Civil judge and no order passed by the Subordinate Civil judge can have the effect of terminating or bringing to an end the proceeding
The High Court alone is competent to pass final orders on the report
A member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and though he owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client he also owes a duty to the Court and must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court in which he is appearing
Making amputations of partiality and unfairness against the subordinate Civil judge in open Court is scandalizing the Court in such a way as to pollute the very fount of justice  such conduct is not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial Service
With regard to disciplinary action against a member of the Bar the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order of the High Court unless there are clear mitigating circumstances