- (1.) This is (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1973) an appeal by one Baradakanta Mishra from his conviction an dsentence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by a Full Bench of five judges of the Orissa High Court. The Judgement is reported in ILR (1973) Cut 134 = (AIR 1973 Orissa 244) (FB) (Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Mishra).
(2.) The appellant started his career as a Munsif in 1974. His career as a Judicial Officer was far from satisfactory. In 1956 he was promoted on trial basis to the rank of a Sub-Judge with the observation that if he was found incompeternt, suitable action would be taken. In due course, he was confirmed as a Subordinate Judge. On April 2,1962 he was promoted, again on trial basis, to the rank of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) which is a post in the cadre of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch.) As his work was found unsatisfactory, he was reverted to his substantive post of a Sub-ordinate Judge on January 4, 1963. The order of reversion was challenged by him in a Writ Petition which was dismised by a Bench of Ahmad, C. J. and Barman, J. The case is reported in ILR (1966) Cut 503. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on February 6, 1967. While working as a Subordinate Judge after reversion, he was suspended from service from 15th May, 1964 to 9th April, 1967 during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding against him. That proceeding ended in a light punishment of two of his increments being stopped. From the above order of punishment, the appellant filed on 10-10-1967 an appeal to the State Government. The State Government by its order dated 15-7-1970 allowed the appeal on the ground that the Public Service Commission had not been consulted by the High Court before imposing the punishment, and that the chargesheet served on the appellant, having indicated the proposed punishment vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. After the case was sent back to the High Court the charges which had been earlier established, were framed again and served on him on 13-2-1971 and we are informed that the proceeding is still pending.
(3.) In the meantime, it appears, he was promoted to the post of the Additional District Magistrate in February, 1968 though the High Court was of opinion that he was unbalanced, quarrel some, reckless and indisciplined. The High Court specifically observed that though the appellant suffered from these defects, he was sincere and hard-working and the other officers who had superseded him as Additional District Magistrares were not much better. The promition was made on trial basis for a period of one year with the observation that if during that period his work was found to be unsatisfactory, he would be reverted to the rank of Sub-Judge.;