In Re: a Mukhtar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
act no. xviii of 1879 (legal practitioners act), section 13(f) - mukhtar--conduct rendering legal practitioner amenable to disciplinary powers of the court--writing insulting letters to an officer. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the provisions of section 13 (f) clearly cover the case, and it is unnecessary to discuss whether it would not also fall under the provisions of section 13 (6). the facts are very simple. on this the mukhtar addressed the officer in charge of the copying department (the officer in question being the sub-divisional officer, a deputy collector and magistrate of standing and position) a letter, the terms of which were deliberately insulting and offensive. 'he followed this up with an even worse letter, and ended that particular transaction by a third letter, which was the worst of the three. these letters would have been perfectly intolerable, if addressed by one private person to another private person, and it is difficult to understand how any man, holding the responsible position which attaches to members of the legal profession, could have been so misguided as to write them.muhammad rafiq, stuart, and wallace, jj.1. a notice has been issued to the mukhtar, by a full bench of this court, on a report of the district judge of gorakhpur, dated the 17th of april, 1919, to show cause why the report made against him should not be accepted, and why proper orders should not be passed against him under section 14 of the legal practitioners act. the substance of the complaint is contained in the district judge's report and the accompanying papers. it is that the mukhtar in question, who practised in the criminal and revenue courts in the kasia sub-division of gorakhpur, had been grossly insulting to a sub-divisional officer in that court. the language objected to was contained in three letters, dated the 22nd of july, 3lst of july and the 5th of august, 1918:2. we have heard the learned vakil who represented the mukhtar in question. he argued upon the wording of sections 13 and 14 of act xviii of 1879 but in the main, confined his plea to a frank admission that the language used in these letters was most improper, coupled with a submission for clemency on the ground that his client had 'been misled and betrayed into using the language of an improper kind, for which he felt genuine regret now that he had time to re-consider his position.3. the suggestion that on the facts there is nothing which entitles us to take action under the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of act xviii of 1879, cannot possibly be supported. the provisions of section 13 (f) clearly cover the case, and it is unnecessary to discuss whether it would not also fall under the provisions of section 13 (6). the facts are very simple.4. the mukhtar had applied to the sab-divisional officer for a copy of a judgment of acquittal. the record in which the judgment had been passed did not happen to be in the copying department of the sub-divisional officer of kasia, and through no fault) of his, he was unable to supply a copy of that judgment). it was open to him to forward the application to the head-quarters of the gorakhpur district, where the record had been transmitted in the ordinary course, and possibly it was his duty to have forwarded the application to head-quarters it is not quite clear whether the rules of the kasia courts had been properly posted up to date, but, in any circumstances, if the officer in charge of the copying department had directed, even without official authorization, that the mukhtar should himself apply at the head-quarters for the copy, he would not have done anything serious, or anything which a reasonable person could take exception to. what he did. was this. he returned the application to the mukhtar who refused to receive it. he sent it again to him by post. the mukhtar again refused to receive it. finally, the application was torn up. by this act the mukhtar might have been put to a loss of some thirteen annas. on this the mukhtar addressed the officer in charge of the copying department (the officer in question being the sub-divisional officer, a deputy collector and magistrate of standing and position) a letter, the terms of which were deliberately insulting and offensive. ' he followed this up with an even worse letter, and ended that particular transaction by a third letter, which was the worst of the three. these letters would have been perfectly intolerable, if addressed by one private person to another private person, and it is difficult to understand how any man, holding the responsible position which attaches to members of the legal profession, could have been so misguided as to write them.5. the question remains how is this man to be dealt with6. he will be suspended from practice for two years accordingly. at the same time he is warned to mend his ways when he returns to practice, as his next slip may be his last. the suspension will take place from the date of this orders and he will deposit his certificate of practice with the registrar of the high court within a week.