Full Judgment
Mallik, J.
1. This rule was issued on H, a pleader practising in the Court at Sealdah, to show cause why he should not be dismissed or suspended Under Section 13, Legal Practitioners' Act, on the ground of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty by giving notice Under Section 80, Civil P. C, upon Babu Kshirodeshwar Banerji, Subordinate Judge at Alipur, a notice which contained highly objectionable words. The notice is dated 12th September 1933 and was received by the Subordinate Judge on the 13th idem. It was signed by H and it purported to be given on behalf of his client, Rai Bahadur Jogendraohandra Ghose. At more than one place in the notice, the Subordinate Judge was charged with having misused his powers and he was charged also with having wantonly, with intent to harm and disgrace the Rai Bahadur, ordered an attachment before judgment. There can be no manner of doubt that these aceusations, coming from a pleader acting on behalf of his client, directed as they were against a judicial officer presiding over a Court and which were almost defamatory in a character, clearly amounted to grossly improper conduct on the part of H. Indeed H, in his explanation, practically admitted that that was so. H., however in showing cause, has tried to explain his conduct by saying that he had signed the notice without having read the contents, thereof. His story was that one Surendra Babu (full name not disclosed) whom he knew to be a gomasta of Rai Bahadur Jogendrachandra Ghose, produced before him a plain sheet of paper without title-head containing some type-written matter and told him that the Rai Bahadur had sent the same to him to be signed by him, and H, who was very busy at the time and had no time to go through the contents of the document except one or two lines at the bottom, signed the document and returned it to Surendra Babu. The question is whether this story can be accepted. I am inclined to think that it cannot. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a pleader having any sense of responsibility-and there is nothing to show that H had no sense of responsibility in him-should put down his signature on a document containing something about damages without reading the contents thereof-only at the bidding of a gomasta of a client, although the client was in a sort of loco parentis to him. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the pleader H has been guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and has therefore brought himself clearly within the purview of Section 13, Legal Practitioners' Act.
2. Now the question is what punishment should be imposed on him. On the one hand, the language used by him was highly objectionable, while, on the other hand, there is the fact that he has expressed his unqualified apology for what has been done by him and has also given an assurance that he will never do it again and there is also the fact that he is an old man of 65 and has put in thirty years of practice. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of opinion that the ends of justice will be satisfied if we suspend him for suspend him for that period of time from tomorrow.
M.C. Ghose, J.
3. I agree. The notice Under Section 80, Civil P. C., which was served upon the Subordinate Judge, is of highly objectionable character. Malice and ill-will are imputed to the Judge in the discharge of his duty. The petitioner is a pleader of 30 years' standing and he ought to know that a Judge acting officially is not liable to be sued in any civil Court for any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his official duty-whether or not he acted within the limit of his official powers-provided that he acted in good faith at the time of doing the act or ordering the act, complained of, to be done. The pleader's explanation that he signed this document without reading it cannot be accepted. He is a pleader of Experience and must be held responsible for the contents of the document, which he signed.