SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the Contempt Rule issued by learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. Before issuing the Contempt Rule, the learned single Judge also issued a show cause notice. The circumstances under which the said notice to show cause before issuing contempt Rule was issued as appears from the said notice is set out hereinunder : "This is to record that sometime back in the last part of February this year between 16-2-1996 and 23-2-1996, Shri Asit Kumar Dasgupta, a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, posted as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta while talking to me over phone at my chamber in a most objectionable, intemperate, annoying and insulting language criticised the move of the High Court and the order of the present Chief Justice calling for copies of judgments delivered by him and few other members of the service for considering their eligibility for granting extension of service beyond 58 years. He asked me to see that copies of judgments were not called for and to tell the Chief Justice that he should not take the matter as in the domain of his father's zamindari inasmuch as many thieves in the Judicial service were allowed extension of their services by this Court on previous occasions without considering their judgments."
(2.) It further appears from the said order issuing notice that the learned Judge being taken aback to hear that a senior officer of the subordinate judiciary could talk to a sitting Judge of the High Court over phone in his chamber in such language challenging the authority of the High Court and abusing the Chief Justice. He informed the same to a senior Judge of this Court of the communication and the matter was duly reported in writing to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice ultimately in his letter dated 17-4-1996 informed the learned Judge that he had referred, the matter to a committee consisting of Justice Samir Kumar Mookherjee, Justice U.C. Banerjee, Justice B. P. Banerjee, Justice N. K. Mitra and Justice A. K. Dutta and promised to communicate their report as and when required.
(3.) But according to the learned Judge although more than one and half months have passed since then nothing has been communicated to the learned Judge in this regard from the end of the Chief Justice. No positive action has been taken against the said officer departmentally or legally. In view of the above conduct of the said officer, the matter, in his opinion, should not be allowed to lie dormant, unattended, ignored and unpunished taking the dignity and authority of this Court. In his view, by making such remarks the aforesaid officer has scandalised and lowered the authority of this Court and is thus guilty of contempt committed in his hearing for which he should be proceeded against for criminal contempt of Court under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But, at the time before issuing a Rule of Contempt, the said officer may be given a chance to explain his conduct before this Court.;