ORDER JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH By this miscellaneous jurisdiction case, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was the sole contesting respondent in LPA No 131 of 2010 preferred by the State, has sought transfer of hearing of the appeal to another Bench on the ground that he has no faith in the Judges hearing the appeal. This objection was taken when apparently, final order was being dictated. Keeping the dignity of the Court, the learned Judges recuse themselves and this application for transfer has now been listed before this Court though, for all intents and purposes, this application itself has become infructuous because the learned Judges having recused themselves, it would ordinarily be assigned to another Bench but what disturbs us is the flagrant and reckless manner in which aspersions are cast on Judges of this Court with no rhyme or reason especially after seeing which way the judgment is likely to be delivered. This is scandalous. To quote from this application, which is only in paragraphs 6 and 7, that the reason for transfer has been given. “6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent/OP has the highest regard for all Hon’ble Judges sitting in Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna as well as in all the Courts under Union Territory, but since in the said LPA there is a delay of 216 days in preferring and filing the said Memo of Appeal which has not been condoned as yet and the explanation of causing the delay given by the appellants is not satisfactory and acceptable and the said LPA is fit to be dismissed on this score alone but still the present Hon’ble Bench is exceedingly anxious to proceed in the matter, which has created doubt in the mind of the humble Respondent/OP because the said LPA relaxed to the service career of Respondent/OP on which the total lives of his families and related members of society are dependent. 7. That in the light of having lost his faith in the present Hon’ble Bench it is expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the case before any other appropriate Bench in the larger public interest, which may be warranted needs of the day and the present prevailing circumstances.” 2. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that these are valid reasons for any apprehension. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that these are valid reasons for any apprehension. If this is not to embarrass the Court and avoid the consequence of litigation what else is it? 3. We have heard the learned Principal AAG also in this matter. 4. In our view, it is a fit case in which we would exercise our suo motu jurisdiction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the deponent of the affidavit of this MJC application Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma for deliberately trying to obstruct Court’s proceedings and interference therein. 5. Let Registry issue notice accordingly to the said Vijay Kumar Sharma in the matter. 6. Show cause, if any, would be filed within two weeks on receipt of notice. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would give the correct present address of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma as he has deliberately given wrong address in the affidavit. 8. List after notice is validly served. 9. We may, in course of the proceeding, would consider what appropriate action to be taken or required to be taken against the Advocate who has advised and filed this application. Oral Order (No.6) dated 28.8.2015 (Per : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh 10. Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel today appears in these proceedings on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma who had filed this MJC application. He identifies Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma and produces his voters’ identity card to prove his identity. 11. As recorded in the earlier order, Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma had filed a writ petition which was allowed. Against the judgment and order in the writ proceedings, a much belated Letters Patent Appeal (For brevity, LPA) was filed by the State. The LPA was heard at length including on ground of delay in filing thereof. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court hearing the LPA was inclined to condone the delay and entertain the appeal for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. At this stage, when the order was being dictated in the Court, an application was moved on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma making serious allegations of judicial impropriety against the Division Bench. The only allegation was made in paragraphs-6 & 7 of this MJC application which has been quoted in the earlier order. At this stage, when the order was being dictated in the Court, an application was moved on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma making serious allegations of judicial impropriety against the Division Bench. The only allegation was made in paragraphs-6 & 7 of this MJC application which has been quoted in the earlier order. In other words, all that was said as the objection on behalf of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma with regard to delay in filing the LPA was not being entertained by the Court, he had serious apprehensions as against the Judges. He felt that he will not get justice and the Judges were otherwise biased against him. He sought transfer of his case from that Court. One of the Judges of the Bench immediately recused himself to save further embarrassment in view of this scandalous allegation made. This is how this MJC application for transfer has been placed before us. 12. This Court found that the allegations made were deliberately made to scandalize the Court into giving up hearing of the case. This is clear action to prevent Court from disposing justice by scandalizing the Court for no reason. In other words, it is a belligerent attitude shown by a litigant affecting the dignity and the functioning of the Court, a clear attempt to obstruct judicial proceedings. This is criminal contempt. 13. It is, accordingly, that we issued notice taking suo motu cognizance of the matter to Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. What we found curious was that the learned Advocate-on-record representing him then Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta feigned ignorance about the whereabouts of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. On the next day, he stated that he was not aware of his address and Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma was admitted in coma in a Hospital in Kolkata and could not be brought here. When we persisted, he engaged another Senior Counsel to appear and seek time to produce Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. Today, another Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh has appeared and Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma appeared before this Court hale and hearty suffering from no apparent illness. 14. We put him direct questions as to whether he had signed the affidavit swearing to the contents of the MJC application. He admitted that it was his signature and being a Class I Gazetted Officer, he was aware of the contents of the affidavit including the scandalous allegations. 14. We put him direct questions as to whether he had signed the affidavit swearing to the contents of the MJC application. He admitted that it was his signature and being a Class I Gazetted Officer, he was aware of the contents of the affidavit including the scandalous allegations. We then asked him whether this application was drafted on his instructions, he refused to answer. We then asked on whose instructions it was written, he refused to answer. The silence is eloquent and speaks more. As Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma refused to answer the queries but takes the responsibility of signing the affidavit, we have no option but to hold him guilty of criminal contempt for scandalizing and obstructing Court proceedings deliberately and knowingly. The apology is, thus, rejected outright. 15. In view of the aforesaid and inspite of Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh who happens to be one of the seniormost Members of the Bar also pleading that Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma be granted apology, we are not inclined to entertain this prayer. A person cannot scandalize the Court and then pray for apology and get away for it is a matter of dignity of Court. 16. Having thus heard, we are constraint to sentence Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma for imprisonment for the day till rising of the Court. The Registrar General will take necessary action in this regard. 17. Let notice be issued to Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate-on-record as to why it be not reported to State Bar Council to take appropriate disciplinary action for his unprofessional and unethical conduct in this regard. Show cause must be filed within one week. Put up under the same heading on 07.09.2015. Oral Judgment dated 11.9.2015 (Per : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh 19. Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, the Advocate-on-record, who filed the pleadings in these proceedings, has been noticed by us to file show cause as to why we should not take appropriate action against him for his unethical unprofessional conduct. Orders dated 29.07.2015 and 28.08.2015 note the facts which we may briefly note again. 20. One Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was Class I Gazetted Officer in the State Government, had filed a writ petition in relation to certain service matter. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge. A much belated Letters Patent Appeal (For brevity, the LPA) was preferred by the State. 20. One Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was Class I Gazetted Officer in the State Government, had filed a writ petition in relation to certain service matter. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge. A much belated Letters Patent Appeal (For brevity, the LPA) was preferred by the State. The LPA was being argued wherein no one entered appearance, inspite of notice, on behalf of respondent Vijay Kumar Sharma who was the writ petitioner. Apparently, the Division Bench, considering the matter, was contemplating to condone the delay and entertain the appeal on merit and the order was being dictated when the Advocate Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta got up and moved an application, that is the present application, for transfer of case from the Court. The pleading was that as the Court was entertaining the LPA and not dismissing it on ground of delay, his client had serious apprehension about the conduct of the Judges. Serious allegations were made upon the integrity of the Judges only to embarrass them and force them not to hear the matter. Faced with such scandalous unfounded allegations, the Judges recused themselves and did not complete the order. Accordingly, this transfer application was listed before this Bench as the Judges, forming the earlier Division Bench, had recused themselves. The Lawyer succeeded and the petition had become virtually infructuous. When it was taken up by us, very innocently, a prayer was made that the application, becoming infructuous, may now be permitted to be withdrawn. We refused permission and in view of the scandalous approach and the scandalous statement made and the allegations made against the Judges, we initiated proceedings of criminal contempt against Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma. The Advocate-on-record was then reluctant to produce him. He had given wrong address. He feigned ignorance of his whereabouts. Then he prayed in the Court that he is in coma lying in a Hospital at Kolkata and could not come. When we proceeded, two days later, he was hale and hearty present in the Court. We noted his contempt and found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment for a day. While doing so, we noticed that Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, the Advocate-on-record abdicated his responsibility to the Court and acted contrary to the professional ethics and profession conduct. We, accordingly, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against him as well. We noted his contempt and found him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to imprisonment for a day. While doing so, we noticed that Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, the Advocate-on-record abdicated his responsibility to the Court and acted contrary to the professional ethics and profession conduct. We, accordingly, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against him as well. The show cause, as filed by Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, is far from satisfactory. Apart from apology, there is nothing. We recall that, on two days, he had belligerently argued and tried to teach this Court the fundamental and constitutional rights of the citizen, as if the rights, are unbridled and a licence to abuse Judges. 21. In such a situation and looking to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi –Versus- State of U P since reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2275 as also the Special Bench judgment of this Court on the issue In The Matter of Initiating Contempt Proceeding In Connection with Obstruction of Court of Justice at Civil Court, Patna City, Patna –Versus- Gopal Prasad Singh & Others since reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 756 , we reject the unqualified apology as we have no manner of doubt that the statements made and the averments made in the transfer application were made deliberately and purposefully. The Advocate-on-record abdicated his duties, as an Officer of the Court and forgot the professional ethics in signing those pleadings and filing it in the Court and then insisting to argue the matter, being a matter of fundamental right and a constitutional right of the citizen including right to abuse the Court. 22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not accept the apology and reject the same inspite of the fact that two leading Members of the Bar have pleaded for mercy. Mercy is given to those who deserves mercy. Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate is an Advocate of over 35 years of standing and professes that he knows all the leading luminaries of the country. Unfortunately, he forgot the basic duty to the Court as an Officer of the Court. 23. Having considered the matter, in view of the status of the learned Senior Counsels, who have appeared and pleaded for Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, instead of taking further steps in the matter, we drop these proceedings with a strong warning. Unfortunately, he forgot the basic duty to the Court as an Officer of the Court. 23. Having considered the matter, in view of the status of the learned Senior Counsels, who have appeared and pleaded for Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta, instead of taking further steps in the matter, we drop these proceedings with a strong warning. If ever it is reported by any Court about misdemeanour in any manner by Shri Dhirendra Kumar Gupta then this Court, that is the High Court, would consider cancelling his certificate/recognition/designation as an AOR and recommending to the State Bar Council that his licence to practice be also cancelled as such people are liability to the profession. Litigants are not safe in his hands. 24. With this warning, we discharge this proceeding. 25. This criminal contempt proceeding having been disposed of, it is to be noted that this application for transfer of the case has also become infructuous. 26. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Bar Council of India and the Bihar State Bar Council. A copy be retained by the Registry of this Court for future use, if any. A copy may also be marked to the Bihar Judicial Academy all with the permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.