# Chandra Prakash Gupta v. Nideshak (Kshetriya Gramin Bank), and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1110
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75265 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-prakash-gupta-v-nideshak-kshetriya-gramin-bank-and-others-40548
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Legal
assistance of trained lawyer-can not be
claimed as a matter of right-it depends
upon statutory Rules and standing order
etc.-petitioner a field officer in BankOfficer
representing
the
employermerely an Inspector-can not be said
legal 'acumen'-competent authority as
well as appellate authority given liberty
to take assistance of any bank employeeheld-No case made out for exercise of
discretionary power.

Held: Para 23, 26 and 28

In view of the above the law can be
summarised that, claim to have the legal
assistance of a trained lawyer cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Whether
the delinquent can ask for it depends
upon
the
Statutory
Rules/Standing
Orders, applicable in the case. More so,
the competent authority has to examine
as to whether the delinquent employee
would
be
able
to
defend
himself
properly, and for that purpose, it is
relevant to examine as what is the
gravity of the charges, and what kind of
legal issues are involved.

The officer representing the employer is
merely an Inspector of the Bank. Thus,
he is neither a lawyer nor a legally
trained person, nor it has been stated
that he is a person of legal acumen, in
strict legal sense, nor there is much
difference in them in the cadre of
hierarchy that petitioner may not be able
to represent his case in his presence.

We are of the considered opinion that
petitioner's cause is not going to be
prejudiced or adversely affected by not
giving him the assistance of the lawyer.
The Competent authority had given him
liberty to take assistance of any Bank
employee, and he can still avail it.
Case law discussed:
2001 (9) SCC-540
1979 WLN-737
1986 RlR-757
1993 Supp. (4) SCC-61

## Text

1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
if his evidence appears to it to be essential
to the just decision of the case.

3. An objection was filed on behalf
of the accused that in the order-dated
26.7.2005 the court has not clarified that
on what fact the reexamination of the
Investigating Officer is necessary.

4. After having heard learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel
for defence also, learned Judge rejected
the application of the accused and as such,
a prayer has been made for quashing the
order-dated 30.9.2005.

5. The main contention of learned
counsel for the applicant is that the court
below was required to record reasons in
its order for recalling the Investigating
Officer for further cross-examination. He
has no grievance against the order for
summoning the Constable.

6. Reliance has been placed on a
Division Bench decision of this Court in
Tahir and others vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2000 (40) A.C.C. 311.

7. I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the decision relied upon by
learned counsel for the applicant. In my
opinion, the aforesaid decision of the
Division Bench does not help the
applicant. The simple reason is that the
impugned order-dated 26.7.2005 was
passed by the court suo motu and not on
the application of the prosecution or
defence. Moreover, second part of Section
311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to
summon or recall or re-examine any
person/ witness if his evidence appears to
be essential for just decision of the case.
Such a power is inherent in a criminal
court for the reason that in the criminal
court every effort is made to reach to the
truth. It appears that learned Sessions
Judge
felt
necessity
to
recall
the
Investigating Officer for re-examination.
In my opinion, none of the parties can
agitate this matter and they cannot prevent
the court from exercising its power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, it is the
responsibility of the courts to do justice
and every efforts should be made by the
court to separate this chaff from grain.

8. The criminal courts are also
required to ensure that no innocent person
is convicted for any offence, which was
actually not committed by him. In this
view of the matter and in view of the clear
provision of Sections 311 Cr.P.C. I am of
the opinion that learned Sessions Judge
committed no illegality in recalling the
Investigating Officer. Consequently, I
find that this application lacks of merit
and is liable to be dismissed.

9. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75265 of 2005

Chandra Prakash Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
Nideshak (Kshetriya Gramin Bank), and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta
4 All] Chandra Prakash Gupta V. Nideshak, (Kshetriya Gramin Bank) and others
1111
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.L. Grover
Sri B.N. Singh

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Legal
assistance of trained lawyer-can not be
claimed as a matter of right-it depends
upon statutory Rules and standing order
etc.-petitioner a field officer in BankOfficer
representing
the
employermerely an Inspector-can not be said
legal 'acumen'-competent authority as
well as appellate authority given liberty
to take assistance of any bank employeeheld-No case made out for exercise of
discretionary power.

Held: Para 23, 26 and 28

In view of the above the law can be
summarised that, claim to have the legal
assistance of a trained lawyer cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Whether
the delinquent can ask for it depends
upon
the
Statutory
Rules/Standing
Orders, applicable in the case. More so,
the competent authority has to examine
as to whether the delinquent employee
would
be
able
to
defend
himself
properly, and for that purpose, it is
relevant to examine as what is the
gravity of the charges, and what kind of
legal issues are involved.

The officer representing the employer is
merely an Inspector of the Bank. Thus,
he is neither a lawyer nor a legally
trained person, nor it has been stated
that he is a person of legal acumen, in
strict legal sense, nor there is much
difference in them in the cadre of
hierarchy that petitioner may not be able
to represent his case in his presence.

We are of the considered opinion that
petitioner's cause is not going to be
prejudiced or adversely affected by not
giving him the assistance of the lawyer.
The Competent authority had given him
liberty to take assistance of any Bank
employee, and he can still avail it.
Case law discussed:
2001 (9) SCC-540
1979 WLN-737
1986 RlR-757
1993 Supp. (4) SCC-61

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for issuing directions to the respondents to
permit the petitioner to engage a legal
practitioner to defend him in departmental
proceedings.

2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are that petitioner,
who was appointed on the post of Field
Officer in 1982, has been served with the
charge-sheet dated 16.8.2004 contending
the allegations that he did not observe the
responsibility of his post and committed
serious irregularities jeopardising the
interest
of
the
Bank
and
made
recommendations for the undeserving
loans. It may be pertinent to mention here
that prior to the initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings by issuing the
charge-sheet dated 16.8.2004, an F.I.R.
had
also
been
lodged
against
the
petitioner on 20.5.2003, and the Crime
Case No. 442 of 2003 is still pending.
Petitioner made an application under the
provisions of Regulation No. 43 of the
Kisan Gramin Bank, Budaun Revised
Officer and the Employees' Service
Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter called the
Regulations),
which
permits
the
representation of the delinquent employee
by the professional lawyer, if the
competent authority so permits. However,
his application was rejected vide order
dated 30.7.2005 observing that he can
take the services of any Bank employee
for that purpose. The petitioner being
aggrieved
against
the
order
dated
30.7.2005 preferred the appeal, which has
also been rejected vide order dated
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
28.11.2005 by the respondent no. 2.
Hence this petition.

3. Shri U.C. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that initiation of the criminal prosecution
as well as the disciplinary proceedings is
at the behest of one Shri Narendra Nath
Dwivedi, the then Branch Manager,
against whom an order under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. has been passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, and the said
order has been passed by the Court on the
basis of the deposition made by the
petitioner as PW2. Thus, the whole
proceedings are mala fides and rejection
of the application of the petitioner for
engaging
a
lawyer
is
arbitrary,
unreasonable, and therefore, the orders
passed by the respondent-authority are
liable to be quashed.

4.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by Shri U.C. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, but we
are not convinced that the disciplinary
proceeding or the criminal prosecution
has been launched against the petitioner at
the behest of said Shri Narendra Nath
Dwivedi, nor such averments can be taken
into consideration as he is not a party
before us. More so, the order has been
passed by the Court under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. on 10th May, 2005. While the
F.I.R. has been lodged against the
petitioner on 20.5.2003, the charge-sheet
in disciplinary proceedings had been
issued on 16.8.2004, i.e., much before the
passing of the order by the Court. Shri
Narendra Nath Dwivedi is merely a
Branch Manager, and thus, it is difficult
to assume that he is so powerful that he
could get the petitioner involved in those
proceedings and the competent authority
was acting at his behest. As he has not
been impleaded as a party, allegations of
mala
fides
cannot
be
taken
into
considerations. (Vide State of Bihar &
Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S. & Anr, 1992
Suppl (1) SCC 222; Dr. J.N. Banavalikar
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi &
Anr., AIR 1996 SC 326; All India State
Bank Officers Federation & Ors Vs.
Union of India & Ors., JT 1996 (8) SC
550; I.K. Mishra Vs. Union of India &
Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228; Federation of
Officers Association Vs. Union of India
& Ors, 2003 AIR SCW 1764).

5. The issue involved herein is no
more res integra as the same has been
considered by the Courts time and again.

6. In N. Kalandri & Ors. Vs. M/s
Tata Locomotive & Engineering Ltd.,
AIR 1960 SC 914; and the Dunlop
Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Their
Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
domestic enquiry, right of the delinquent
employee of being represented by a
Lawyer or other employee would depend
upon the Certified Standing Orders of the
Employer or the Rules applicable in such
a case. There is no right to representation
as such unless the company, by its
Standing Order, recognised such right.

7. In C.L.Subramaniam Vs. The
Collector of Customs, Cochin, AIR 1972
SC 2178, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that right of being represented by a lawyer
had to be considered in the light of the
Statutory Rules. In that case, the Court
dealt with the provisions of Sub-rule (5)
of
the
Central
Civil
Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
1967, which provided as under:-
"The Disciplinary Authority may
nominate any person to present the case in
4 All] Chandra Prakash Gupta V. Nideshak, (Kshetriya Gramin Bank) and others
1113
support of the charges because the
Authority enquiring into the charges, the
Government servant may present his case
with the assistance of any Government
servant approved by the Disciplinary
Authority, he may not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless the
person nominated by the Disciplinary
Authority, as aforesaid, is a legal
practitioner or unless the Disciplinary
Authority,
having
regard
to
the
circumstances of the case, so permits."
(Emphasis added).

8. In the said case, the representative
of the employer though was not a legal
practitioner but was a legally trained
prosecutor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
came to the conclusion that as the
employer's case was handled by the
trained prosecutor, the delinquent should
have been allowed to be represented by
the lawyer for the reason that in such
circumstances the cause of the delinquent
may seriously be prejudiced and it may
amount
to
denial
of
reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The Court
further held that such an opportunity may
be provided when a person is charged
with the breach of the rule entailing
serious consequences, and is not likely to
be in a position to present his case as best
as it should be. The accusation against the
appellant threatened his very livelihood.
Any adverse verdict against him was
bound to be disastrous to him as it had
proved to be. In such situation, he cannot
be
expected
to
act
calmly
with
deliberation. That is why, rule 15 (5) has
provided
for
representation
of
the
Government
servant
charged
with
dereliction of duty or with contravention
of the rule by another Government servant
and in appropriate cases by a legal
practitioner.
9. In H.C. Sarin Vs. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1686, while
interpreting the provisions of Rule 1730
of the Railways Establishment Code, the
Apex Court took aid of the notes attached
to the said Rules and held that in absence
of the Statutory provision, the delinquent
was not entitled for the assistance of a
lawyer. While deciding the said case, the
Court placed reliance on the judgment in
R Vs. Secretary of State for the Home
Department Ex-parte Mughal, (1973) 3
All ER 796, where it had been held as
under:-

"The rules of natural justice must not
be stretched too far. Only too often the
people who have done wrong seek to
invoke ''the rules of natural justice' so as
to avoid the consequences."

10. In Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors., AIR 1980
SC 1170, the Supreme Court considered
the similar issue and observed as under:-
"The other circumstances were that
(Enquiry Officer) did not permit the
appellant to engage the lawyer and that he
allowed
the
Presenting
Officer
to
introduce extraneous matters. The rule
gives a discretion to the Enquiry Officer
to permit or not to permit a delinquent
officer to be represented by a lawyer. In
the present case, the appellant crossexamined the prosecution witnesses and
also examined the defence witnesses.
Thereafter when the matter was posted for
argument and was adjourned at least once
at the instance of the appellant, the
appellant
came
forward
with
an
application seeking permission to engage
a lawyer. The Enquiry Officer rejected the
application and noticed that it was made
at a very belated stage. We think, he was
right in doing so; nor is it possible for us
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
to infer bias from the circumstances that
the Enquiry Officer did not allow the
appellant to engage the lawyer. We
cannot conceive of any prejudice resulting
to him by denial of a lawyer."

11. In Board of Trustees of Port of
Bombay
Vs.
Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni & ors., AIR
1983 SC 109, the Apex Court held that
fair play in action requires that in a
domestic inquiry, when the delinquent
officer is pitted against a legally trained
mind and if he seeks permission to appear
through a legal practitioner, the refusal to
grant this request would amount to denial
of a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself. The Court was interpreting the
provisions of regulation 12 (8) of the
Bombay
Port
Trust
Employees
Regulations, 1976, which was amended
providing the assistance of a lawyer
during pendency of the inquiry.

12. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of
Himalchal Pradesh & ors., AIR 1983 SC
454, the Apex Court examined the issue
and
came
to
the
conclusion
That
delinquent employee should not be at a
comparative
disadvantageous
position
when compared to the Disciplinary
Authority represented by the Presenting
Officer of a very high rank or much
superior from the delinquent. The test to
determine whether reasonable opportunity
is
given
or
not,
is
to
be
determined/considered
whether
the
employee himself was able to understand
as what was the charge against him and
was able to defend himself.

13. In J.K. Aggarwal Vs. Haryana
Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. &
ors., AIR 1991 SC 1221, the Apex Court
held as under:-
"It would appear that in the inquiry,
the
Respondent-Corporation
was
represented
by
its
personnel
and
Administrative Manager who is stated to
be a man of law. The rule itself
recognizes that where the charges are so
serious as to entail a dismissal from
service the inquiry authority may permit
the services of a lawyer. This rule vests
discretion. In the matter of exercise of this
discretion one of the relevant factors is
whether there is likelihood of the
combat being unequal entailing a
miscarriage or failure of justice and a
denial of a real and reasonable
opportunity for defence by reason of
the appellant being pitted against a
presenting officer who is trained in
law......... On a consideration of the
matter, we are persuaded to the view that
the refusal to sanction the service of a
lawyer in the inquiry was not a proper
exercise of the discretion under the rule
resulting in a failure of natural justice;
particularly, in view of the fact that the
Presenting Officer was a person with legal
attainments and experience. It was said
that the appellant was no less adept
having been in the position of a Senior
Executive and could have defended, and
did defend, himself competently; but as
was observed by the learned Master of
Rolls in Pett's case that in defending
himself one may tend to become ''nervous'
or ''tongue tied'. Moreover, appellant, it is
claimed, has had no legal back-ground.
The refusal of the service of a lawyer, in
the facts of this case, results in denial of
natural justice."

14. In Crescent Dyes and Chemicals
Ltd. Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2
SCC 115, the Apex Court held as under:-
4 All] Chandra Prakash Gupta V. Nideshak, (Kshetriya Gramin Bank) and others
1115
"A delinquent appearing before the
Tribunal may feel that the right to
representation is implied in the larger
entitlement of a fair hearing based on the
rule of justice. He may, therefore, feel that
refusal to be represented by an agent of
his choice would tantamount to denial of
natural justice. Ordinarily, it is considered
desirable not to restrict this right of
representation by counsel or an agent of
one's choice, but it is different thing to say
that such right is an element of principles
of natural justice and denial thereof would
invalidate the inquiry. Representation
through counsel can be restricted by
law."

15. The Court further held that it
seems to us that the right to be
represented by a counsel or agent of one's
own choice, is not an absolute right and
can be controlled, restricted or regulated
by law, Rules or Regulations. However, if
the charge is of a serious and complex
nature, the delinquent's request to be
represented through a counsel or agent
should be conceded.

16. In Bharat Petrolium Corporation
Ltd. Vs Maharashtra General Kamgar
Union & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 401, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering
this issue in detail and after considering a
large number of its judgments, held as
under:-
"The basic principle is that an
employee has no right to representation in
the departmental proceedings by another
person or a lawyer unless the Service
Rules specifically provide for the same.
The right to representation is available
only to the extent specifically provided
for in the Rules."

17. Similar view has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIPLA
Ltd. & ors. Vs. Ripu Daman Bhanot &
Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1635.
Rule 16 (5) of the Rajasthan Civil
Services
(Classification,
Control
&
Appeal) Rules, 1958 reads as under:-
"The Disciplinary Authority may
nominate any person to present the case in
support of the charges before the authority
inquiring
into
charges
(hereinafter
referred to as the Inquiring Authority).
The Government servant may present his
case with the assistance of any other
Government
servant
(or
retired
Government Servant) approved by the
Disciplinary Authority, but may not
engage a legal practitioner for the purpose
unless, the person nominated by the
Disciplinary
Authority
is
a
legal
practitioner or unless the Disciplinary.
Authority,
having
regard
to
the
circumstances of the case, so permits."

18. While interpreting the said
provisions, in State of Rajasthan Vs. S.K.
Dutt Sharma, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 61, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
delinquent could not claim the assistance
of the lawyer as a matter of right. More
so, the gravity of the charges should also
be taken into consideration in such a case
as to whether the delinquent would be
able to contest the charges.

19. While interpreting the said rule
in case if Judicial Officers, a Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in
Ravindra Nath Vs. State, 1986 RLR 757,
held that the Presenting Officer who is
directly recruited to the RHJS from the
bar stands on a better footing than a
judicial officer who was promoted to the
RHJS from the subordinate judiciary, in
the matter of competence. In case the
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
petitioner felt that a directly recruited
judicial officer would be in a better
position to represent his case he should
have requested the disciplinary authority
to appoint such an officer as the defence
nominee. It cannot be said that the
disciplinary authority has committed an
error in rejecting the application of the
petitioner to engage a legal practitioner
and
that
the
said
refusal
of
the
disciplinary authority to permit the
petitioner to engage a legal practitioner
has caused any material prejudice to the
petitioner in defending himself.

20. A Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court in Ugam Raj
Bhandari Vs. State, 1979 WLN 737, held
that where Presenting Officer was a
District Judge and Assisting Officer was a
Civil Judge of 12 years standing, held no
prejudice was caused in refusing to
engage a lawyer.

21. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs.
Indian
Overseas
Bank
Officer's
Association & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 540, a
similar view has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that no
such claim can be made as a right,
however, it may be examined as not
permitting the assistance of the lawyer,
the cause of the delinquent is going to be
prejudiced and adversely affected as the
Charged Officer may not be able to
effectively defend himself.

22. Even otherwise, unless in a
given situation, the aggrieved party makes
out a case of prejudice or injustice, mere
infraction of law will not vitiate the
order/inquiry/selection.

23. In view of the above the law can
be summarised that, claim to have the
legal assistance of a trained lawyer cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. Whether
the delinquent can ask for it depends upon
the Statutory Rules/Standing Orders,
applicable in the case. More so, the
competent authority has to examine as to
whether the delinquent employee would
be able to defend himself properly, and
for that purpose, it is relevant to examine
as what is the gravity of the charges, and
what kind of legal issues are involved.

24. Another point of paramount
consideration for the authority to consider
is, as who is the presenting officer on
behalf of the employer. If he is a trained
lawyer or a law officer, or any person
having good legal acumen, it may not be
possible for the delinquent to defend
himself. More so, if the presenting officer
is of a very high rank and the delinquent
belongs to the lower category of the
service, he may not be able to put his case
freely, and it further requires to be
considered that if the lawyer's assistance
is not provided, as to whether the
delinquent employee's cause is going to
be prejudiced or adversely affected.

25. The instant case requires to be
considered in the light of the aforesaid
settled legal propositions.

The provisions of the aforesaid
Regulation 43 reads as under:-
"Restriction of engagement of a legal
practitioner- for the purpose of Enquiry
Officer or employee shall not engage a
legal practitioner without prior permission
of the competent authority."

26. It empowers the competent
authority to permit the assistance of a
lawyer in the light of the aforesaid settled
legal
propositions.
The
disciplinary
4 All] Chandra Shekhar V. Sri J.P. Rajpoot and others
1117
authority as well as the appellate authority
has rejected the application of the
petitioner for assistance of the lawyer.
However, the delinquent employee has
been given liberty to seek assistance of
any employee of the Bank. The petitioner
is working in the Bank as a Field Officer
since 1982. The charges framed against
him in the disciplinary proceedings are of
not very grave nature, as allegations are
only not working with sincerity and
responsibility,
while
making
recommendation for grant of loans. The
officer representing the employer is
merely an Inspector of the Bank. Thus, he
is neither a lawyer nor a legally trained
person, nor it has been stated that he is a
person of legal acumen, in strict legal
sense, nor there is much difference in
them in the cadre of hierarchy that
petitioner may not be able to represent his
case in his presence.

27. In spite of our repeated queries,
Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner could not point out as to
why the petitioner feels to be not
competent to defend himself. A parrot
like reply came repeatedly that the
petitioner does not want to defend
himself. That is all. Such a plea, if
permitted to be taken, is not enough to
meet the requirement of law.

28. We are of the considered opinion
that petitioner's cause is not going to be
prejudiced or adversely affected by not
giving him the assistance of the lawyer.
The Competent authority had given him
liberty to take assistance of any Bank
employee, and he can still avail it.

29. The supplementary affidavit
filed today in the Court reveals that the
Bank employees, whose names were
given by the petitioner to be his defence
nominee, have refused to do so only and
only on the ground that they would not be
able to spare two days in a week, as the
inquiry had been fixed for two days in
every week, i.e., Friday and Saturday. It is
not his case that nobody was ready to
defend. There is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner ever requested the
competent authority to fix the inquiry
only for one day in a week.

30. In such a fact-situation, no case
is
made
out
for
interference
in
discretionary writ jurisdiction. Petition is
devoid of any merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No.1423 of 2005

Chandra Shekhar ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Sri J.P. Rajpoot & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:

High Court Rules-Chapter 8 rule 5
Contempt of Courts Act-Section 19Special
Appeal-against
the
Order
dropping contempt proceeding-held-not
maintainable-a right of appeal is creative
of
Statute-in
absence
of
specific
provisions appeal can not be pressedHowever if the contempt court dealing
with
contempt
case-same
direction
issued-Special Appeal can be filled only
to that extant.