Bhagwati, C. J. - (1.) This is a rather unusual appeal in two respects. In the first place, it is preferred by the Advocate-General of Bihar, the highest Law Officer in the State and leader of the Bar by virtue of his official position and secondly, it is not directed against any order of the High Court with a view to its reversal or modification but it merely seeks expunction of certain remarks made by the High Court against the appellant, it arises out of an unfortunate incident which happened in the court of Mr. Justice S. K. Jha and which in our opinion, could have been avoided with a little tact and understanding. We do not propose to enquire as to who was at fault in this regrettable incident - whether the learned Judge or the appellant- since any finding reached by us as a result of such enquiry would either affect the dignity of the judicial institution or the position and prestige of the high office of Advocate General.. We would like to avoid either consequence because the dignity of the judicial institution which alone can ensure the confidence and respect of the people is as much dear to us as the position of prestige occupied by the office of Advocate-General of a State. Let us state the facts giving rise to the present appeal.
(2.) On 6th November 1984, a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 4100 of 1984 was placed for admission before Mr. Justice S.K. Jha sitting as a single Judge in the High Court of Patna. The writ petition was admitted by him but no notice. was ordered to issue since all the respondents were represented by Government Pleader No. 1. It seems that Government Pleader No. 1 had already accepted notice and filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. There were three respondents, namely, the State of Bihar, the Director of Primary Education, Bihar, and Shri Pramod Ban Bihari Singh, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division. The learned Judge while admitting the writ petition made an order that if the services of the petitioners in the writ petition were being utilised in any manner, they should be paid their minimum legal dues. It seems that some doubt was felt in regard to the true effect of this portion of the order dated 6th November 1984 and an application for clarification was, therefore, made on behalf of the petitioners and this application came up for hearing before the learned Judge on 15th February 1985. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents were present and they were heard on the application and after hearing them, the learned Judge passed an Order on 15th February 1985 pointing out that the Order passed by him on 6th November 1984 did not require any clarification but with a view to erring on the safe side, the learned Judge directed that "all such teachers from whom work was being taken shall be paid their legal dues" and "the authorities concerned shall in duty bound pay to the petitioners the B.A. trained scale which they were getting earlier and against which post their work is being utilised". This Order made by the learned Judge was not carried out by the respondents and the petitioners were compelled to file an application for contempt, viz., MJC No. 173/85. The learned Judge took up the application for contempt for hearing on 6th December 1985. The learned Judge found that the attitude of respondent No. 3 was defiant and he accordingly sent for the appellant and requested him in his capacity as Advocate-General "to look into the matter personally and to see that the matter with regard to the contempt may not end in some unseemly result against the contemner", i.e. respondent No. 3. The appellant obviously was not bound to intervene in the matter and he could have easily left the contempt application to be decided by the learned Judge on merits, but as a responsible Law Officer, he, in deference to the request of the learned Judge took upon himself to see that the Order dated 15th February 1985 passed by the learned Judge was obeyed and the contemner was purged of the contempt committed by him and assured the Court that he would "look to it that it is so done within a period of one month". The learned Judge in view of this statement made by the appellant granted instead of one month as prayed for by the appellant, six weeks' time to the contemner to purge himself of the contempt committed by him. The learned Judge made an Order directing that if the contemner does not purge himself of the contempt within the period of six weeks granted to him, the contempt application would stand revived and it would be disposed of according to law. Thus, by this Order dated 6th December, 1986 six weeks time was granted for respondent No. 3 to purge himself of the contempt by carrying out the Order dated 15th February 1986 and this Order was made in view of the statement made by the appellant that he would see to it that this was done within a period of one month.
(3.) It is the case of the appellant that at the time when the Order dated 6th December 1985 was passed by the learned Judge, the 3rd respondent was present in court and the appellant there and then instructed. him that the Order dated, 15th February 1985 must be immediately carried out by the respondents. The appellant followed up this oral instruction to the 3rd respondent by telephoning to the Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Education Department on 24th December 1985. The appellant impressed upon the Special Secretary that the teachers in whose favour the Order dated 15th February 1985 had been made should be paid the B.A. trained scale and that if the writ petition was ultimately disposed of in favour of the respondents and the claim of the teachers to the B.A. trained scale was not accepted, the excess amount paid to the teachers could always be recovered from them. The appellant having personally instructed the 3rd respondent on 6th December 1985 to implement the directions given by the learned Judge on 15th February 1985 and having directly talked to the Special Secretary in the Education Department to make payment according to the directions given by the learned Judge presumably remained under the impression that payment must have been made by the respondents to the teachers in accordance with the directions of the learned Judge and consequently did not take any further steps in the matter. It seems that instead of complying with the directions given by the learned Judge and making payment to the teachers according to the B.A. trained scale, respondents Nos. 1 and 3, viz., the State of Bihar and the Regional Deputy Director of Education filed a special leave petition in this Court against the Order of the learned Judge dated 6th December 1985. This was done by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 without consulting the appellant or taking his advice and the appellant was not aware that such special leave petition had been filed by them. Since the Order dated 15th February 1985 was not carried out within the period of six weeks granted by the Court, the application for contempt was revived and directed to be placed on Board on 11th February 1986. On that day, the appellant was not in Patna as he had gone to Bokaro in order to attend the sitting of Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry. The learned Judge, was terribly annoyed and in our opinion rightly that the Order dated 15th February 1985 had not been carried out by the respondents though an assurance had been given by the appellant that he would see to it that the Order was carried out within one month and since the appellant was likely to be away until 15th February 1986, the learned Judge passed an Order adjourning the application for contempt to 15th February 1986. The learned Judge however added that "the learned Advocate General must be present personally in this Court, failing which appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken against him". The learned Judge also took an undertaking from Shri S.K.P. Sinha, who was junior counsel in the case, that he would ensure the presence of the Advocate General and that he would be hauled up if the Advocate General failed to turn up. This Order made by the learned Judge received considerable publicity in the newspapers and the appellant came to learn about it on receiving a telephonic message from his office in Patna on 12th February 1986. He completed his work before Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry at Bokaro on 14th February 1986 and immediately took a train to Patna. Reaching there at 10.30 a.m. on 15th February 1986. On reaching Patna, he straightway went home and after washing and changing, rushed to the Court without having had any time to enquire as to what had happened in regard to the implementation of the Order of the Court dated 15th February 1985. No sooner did the appellant reach the Court, the learned Judge observed that he had been informed that both respondents Nos. 1 and 3 had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the Order dated 6th December 1985 and he asked the appellant as to whether it was under his advice that such special leave petition had been filed. The appellant stated that the special leave petition had been filed without taking his advice and that at the moment he was unable to inform the Court as to what steps had been taken by the authorities in implementation of the assurance given by him to the Court on 6th December 1985 as he was not aware of what had transpired between the State authorities inter se. The appellant pointed out that he had come directly to the Court from his house after arriving at the Patna railway station at 10.30 a.m. and that he had not had time to go through the files of the Government and that the matter should, therefore, be taken up on the next working day, namely, Monday. The learned Judge, however, remarked that he was going to be away in Ranchi for a month from Monday. The appellant thereupon asked for time till 2.00 p.m., so that he could call for the files and look into them but the learned Judge refused this request of the appellant and proceeded to make an Order dated 15th February 1986 convicting the 3rd respondent for committing contempt of Court by not carrying out the Order dated 15th February 1985 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and. to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant could have no grievance against this part of the Order but the learned Judge proceeded to pass strictures against the appellant and to admonish him. in rather severe terms. It is this part of the Order made by the learned Judge which is complained of by the appellant in the present appeal. The appellant seeks expunction of the strictures passed by the learned Judge against him on the ground that the strictures were unjustified.;