Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is questioning the endorsement issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The matter arises in the following manner: The petitioner claims that for over a period of time he was working as a parcel booking agent, through ABC Parcel Service and other organizations in the Bangalore City Railway Station. According to him, respondents 7, 8 and 9 are working as Constables in the Government Railway Police Station. It is his claim that they have been regularly harassing him and demanding bribe of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this connection, the petitioner, it appears, on several occasions requested the respondent No.6, being the Controlling Officer, to rein in the respondents 7 to 9. it is his case that respondents 6 to 9 have also amassed wealth, which is disproportionate to their known source of income. Hence, the petitioner lodges a complaint with the first respondent regarding the alleged misappropriation of wealth disproportionate to their known source of income. The matter was inquired into by respondent No.2 and a note is put up indicating that respondents 6 to 9 are not amenable to the jurisdiction of Karnataka Lokayukta, inasmuch as, they are the employees of the Central Government. Thus, directed closure of the Complaint. The first respondent has approved the scrutiny note put up by respondent No.2. 3. Indeed, a perusal of the memorandum of writ petition and the grounds therein would indicate that the petitioner, without any semblance of responsibility, has made certain scandalous allegations against respondent No.1. The matter was heard for some time. Thereafter, it is listed for further hearing today. 4. Indeed, two questions arise for consideration in the present proceedings: (1) Whether the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent warrants interference and (2) What is the duty of a counsel or an advocate who is engaged by a party and the restraint which he is supposed to exercise while drafting a petition on the instructions of the party. 5. Insofar as the scrutiny note and interference thereafter is concerned, it is to be noticed that the complaint is filed as against respondents 6 to 9 alleging that they are demanding bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant to work as a parcel agent. 5. Insofar as the scrutiny note and interference thereafter is concerned, it is to be noticed that the complaint is filed as against respondents 6 to 9 alleging that they are demanding bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant to work as a parcel agent. the scrutiny note would further disclose that when the complainant refused to pay the bribe, he was harassed by registering a false case by colluding with his subordinates and has not taken any action. On scrutiny, it was found that through the complaint is filed in forms I and II, the respondents are not public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, inasmuch as, they are all railway department employees i.e., employees of the Central Government and do not come within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Lokayukta. This note was rightly approved by the first respondent. Hence, to that extent. I am of the view that the endorsement cannot be faulted. 6. This takes us to the larger question as to the duty cast on the counsel towards the Court as well as the persons who are arrayed as party in the proceedings. Indeed, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the memorandum of writ petition would read as under: “8. The Lokayuktha of Karnataka (Respondent No.1) appears of have failed to uphold the dignity of the august office to which he has been selected. 9. The Lokayuktha either has been swayed over by the false notes of his subordinate officials (Respondent No.2) or has been own (Sic) over with illegal gratifications from respondents No.6 to 9 and has choosen (Sic) to close the complaint at the threshold without application of mind.” Notice of the proceedings were issued and the first respondent has filed a statement supported by an affidavit. In the statement, it is emphatically denied by the first respondent that he has any connection with any of the respondents. The first respondent would further contend that before making such a serious scandalous averments in the petition, he ought to have made an appropriate inquiry in this regard. The first respondent has also strongly denied the allegation that he has been swayed over by the notes put up by the subordinate officials or has been won over by illegal gratifications from respondents 6 to 9. The first respondent has also strongly denied the allegation that he has been swayed over by the notes put up by the subordinate officials or has been won over by illegal gratifications from respondents 6 to 9. The first respondent would further state that the petitioner who is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is trying to misuse the judicial forum for the reasons best known to him and defame the first respondent by making baseless and irresponsible allegations and suitable action be taken as against the petitioner and all concerned. 7. Separate statement of objections are filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 denying the averments made in the writ petition. They would also contend that the petitioner was informed by the second respondent that the matter is closed, inasmuch as, the respondents therein are not amenable to the jurisdiction of Karnataka Lokayukta. 8. Indeed as to the duty case on the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the parties is concerned, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.N. Venkatachalaiah, former Chief Justice of India, has this to say: “The subject of traditions of the Bar, has quite unfortunately come to be associated with certain indelicate assumptions than the best traditions of the Bar are myth and illusions of bygone times and nostalgia of 19th century. I venture more hopefully to think that the great traditions of Bar have sustained the profession of law which every civilized society cherishes as a part of very valuable inheritance. The high traditions are spring of strength and sustenance in its days of trial. The profession of the lawyer is perhaps the single most powerful for the protection of the liberty of man and the decision of civilized living.” 9. Advocates are the inheritors of tradition of scholarship, wisdom, dignity, courage and service. The Advocate by his tradition is under several duties. They comprise of duty to the court, duty to the profession, duty to the opponent, duty to the client, duty to the self and duty to public and State. They duty of an Advocate to the Court is also equally important. This duty encompasses and comprises courtesy and respect to the court. An Advocate can differentiate without being abject, independent and fearless without being disrespectful, firmness can co-exist with an equal amount of grace and politeness. 10. They duty of an Advocate to the Court is also equally important. This duty encompasses and comprises courtesy and respect to the court. An Advocate can differentiate without being abject, independent and fearless without being disrespectful, firmness can co-exist with an equal amount of grace and politeness. 10. Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would speak about the General power of the Bar Council of India to make certain rules. For the present, we are concerned with Section 49 ( c ) of the Act, which would speak about the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the Advocates. Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette is to be found in Chapter-2 of Part-VI of Bar Council of India Rules which is framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act read with the proviso would clearly indicate as to the duty of an advocate towards the court. We are more concerned with item No.4 of Section I which would read as under: “An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in the Court.” (emphasis supplied) If the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act is read with the Rules of Bar Council of India, it would clearly indicate that in the case on hand, the petitioner as well as the counsel have exceeded their legitimate right in respect of the pleadings. Indeed to say the least, the allegations and the averments are scandalous and vexatious. 11. Indeed, the question now would be whether the said two paragraphs in the memorandum of writ petition are to be expunged. In this regard, one can refer to Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure which would relate to striking out of the pleadings. Indeed, a perusal of the said provision would indicate that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, can strike out or amend and matter in any manner in any pleading. In this regard, one can refer to Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure which would relate to striking out of the pleadings. Indeed, a perusal of the said provision would indicate that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, can strike out or amend and matter in any manner in any pleading. Rule 16(a) would state that the averments or the pleadings which are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious are required to be deleted. Indeed, it is to be noticed that Rule 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1959 would clearly indicate that the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure are made applicable to the writ proceedings. I am of the view that the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition at paragraphs 8 and 9 were wholly unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and any counsel worth his salt ought not to have made such a scandalous allegation without verifying the facts. The Apex Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another Vs. Hon’ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 19 has observed thus: “This misconception has to be rooted out by a clear and emphatic pronouncement, and we think it should be widely made known that counsel who sign applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the Court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefore, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of Court, and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take an interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.” Having regard to the finding recorded by me that the averments made in paragraphs 8 and 9 are scandalous, the said two paragraphs are required to be expunged from the present proceedings and accordingly expunged. With this observation, the petition stands rejected.