- (1.) The appellant, Mr. Pritam Pal Dhingra is a practising Advocate in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, having joined the Bar on 4-2-1979. Earlier to joining the Bar, he was serving in the Army and retired on 23-12-65. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the Defence Accounts Department on 7-2-1966 as U.D.C. (Auditor). On 29-2-76, the appellant served three months' notice resignation upon the departmental authorities for the reasons mentioned in the said notice and also requested to pay him the contributory provident fund benefits for his 10 years' service though the date of his superannuation in the said post was 30-9-1986. The Department not only refused to accept his resignation but also did not relieve him even after the expiry of three months. According to the appellant, there was neither any departmental enquiry pending nor contemplated against him during those three months i.e. between 29-2-76 and 31-5-76. However, a charge sheet dated 21-12-76 for imposing a major penalty on a complaint by Jt. C.D.A. Vehicle Factory was served on him to which he submitted his written statement. Then he served a final quit notice w.e.f. 8-1-77. Though on the basis of the show cause notice, an enquiry was started, nothing came out of it. Therefore, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by filing Writ Petition M.P. No. 786 of 1978 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sworn on 27-11-78 requesting several prayers inclusive of issuance of directions to the respondent therein (the departmental authorities) to accept his resignation so as to enable him to take any other profession of his liking and to declare the retention of his service against his will after 31-5-1976 as illegal and mala fide and to reimburse pay and allowances for the period of his enforced absence after the expiry of three months notice period etc. The High Court issued show cause notice to the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition. The respondent No. 3 thereafter accepted the resignation dated 29-2-76 of the appellant w.e.f. 15-1-79 by which time the appellant claims to have completed 31 years of combined military and civil service i.e. from 29-11-47 to 15-1-79. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry initiated against him was dropped. Then the appellant submitted supplemental applications praying that his resignation should be converted into one of voluntary retirement and that his military services should be counted with civil service and that he should be given all service benefits like pension, gratuity etc. as well as consequential benefits on account of the delay in acceptance of his resignation. Two applications being I.A. No. 908/ 79 and 1. A. No. 4246/ 78 were filed by the appellant, they being one for amendment of the petition and the other for taking some additional grounds. Both applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Mr. Justice J. S. Verma (as he then was) and Mr. Justice U. N. Bachawat, as the counsel for the respondents had no objection and granted one week time for incorporating the amendments in the petition. At the request of the counsel for the respondent, Shri R. P. Sinha, the Court granted two weeks time to file the additional return by order dated 16-3-79. The case was listed for further hearing on 2-4-79 on which date the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant then on 16-4-79 moved an application to review the order dated 2-4-79. The application was registered as M.C.C. No. 209 of 1979. This application too was dismissed on 23-4-79 with the following observation: "The grievance of the petitioner in this review petition is that the writ petition (M.P. No. 786/ 78) was dismissed in motion hearing without hearing the petitioner. The substance of the order dismissing the Writ Petition in motion hearing as stated earlier indicates that this averment made by the petitioner is not correct. We also distinctly recollect that the petitioner was heard fully on the question of admission and it was only thereafter that the petition was dismissed by dictating that order in the Court in the presence of the petitioner. We would, therefore, reiterate that this grievance of the petitioner that he was not heard at the time of motion hearing is wholly incorrect. The submissions made by the petitioner in support of this review application are (1) that there is error apparent on the face of the record because the writ petition was dismissed in motion hearing without hearing the petitioner, (2) that, summarily dismissal of the writ petition was arbitrary because after notice had been issued to the respondents 1 to 3 show cause why the petition be not admitted, it was incumbent on the Court to admit the writ petition and hear both sides at length before passing any order; and (3) that, on account of above position, the petitioner was not given a fair deal before dismissing the writ petition in motion hearing. As earlier stated, the petitioner was heard fully at the end of motion hearing and so also the counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, Shri R. P. Sinha. The main averment on the basis of which all the aforesaid submissions are based, i.e. lack of full opportunity to the petitioner is, therefore, wholly non-existent. We are constrained to observe that in making these submissions, the petitiner who is now enrolled as an Advocate, has not been fair to the Court. The petitioner who is now enrolled as a lawyer was expected to exhibit at least the minimum decorum and sense of responsibility which is expected from a member of this noble profession. We are pained to observe that the petitioner took a very unreasonable attitude and exhibited a behaviour which could not be appreciated even by the members of the Bar who were present when this order was being dictated in the Court room after the hearing. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a new entrant in the Bar, we have chosen not to take serious notice of the conduct of the petitioner in the hope that the petitioner having now become a member of the Bar will try to follow the high traditions of the Bar which he has chosen to join . There is no merit in this review application. It is summarily dismissed."
(2.) On being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal dated 2-4-79, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition No. 570 of 1979 before this Court but was not successful as the SLP was dismissed on 25-7-79.
(3.) The appellant on being disturbed by the dismissal of his Writ Petition moved a Contempt Petition on 16-4-80 under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') making some serious allegations against the two Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who dismissed his Writ Petition on 2-4-79 and thereafter the Review Petition on 23-4-79 and also impleaded Shri R. P. Sinha as the third respondent in that petition. According to the appellant, the contempt petition was registered as M.C.C. No. 136 of 1980 and placed before a Division Bench on 29-4-1980 which after hearing the appellant summarily dismissed the contempt petition.;