HC takes state to task on bungling over judge’s bill

Additional Advocate-General P Janardhanan submitted before the bench today that the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer Balkrishna Tirankar, who refused to sanction a bill towards a judge’s journey, would withdraw his affidavit. Tirankar’s affidavit denied allegations of contemptuous utterances to high court clerk and added that he was willing to apologise anyway.

Justice Srikrishna told Additional Advocate-General P Janardhanan. “Make up your mind if you want to justify your action. We will have to take a firm view of the matter.” Janardhanan replied, “Tirankar will withdraw his affidavit.” Justice Srikrishna retorted, “We will not accept his conditional apology in the affidavit. He has to tender an unconditional and unqualified apology.”

On September 18, 2000, Justice T K Chandrashekar Das was assigned to the Panaji bench of the Bombay High Court and asked to proceed immediately. The high court administration purchased air-tickets on credit from a travel agent. On September 19, a bill for Rs 22,000 was presented towards advance travel allowance to the P&A Office. Tirankar, who handles bills of various government offices in Fort, reportedly told the court clerk, Charles Wilson, that the bill cannot be entertained in the form of an advance as the journey had already been undertaken. He asked that a fresh bill for reimbursement be presented as a final bill.

On September 27, the same bill was presented by Wilson and it was turned down. Wilson returned and reported the matter to the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. He alleged certain misconduct by way of utterances by Tirankar. The administration asked him to file an affidavit on that basis. It also filed a report.

Since Chief Justice B P Singh was away in Aurangabad, the matter was placed before senior-most judge, Justice B N Srikrishna, who directed the court administration on September 28, to issue a notice for contempt of court against Tirankar and to treat the report and Wilson’s affidavit as a suo moto writ petition.

Wilson’s affidavit states that when he went to re-submit the bill on September 27, Tirankar allegedly was very rude and threw the bill at his face. Wilson said he reminded Tirankar that the bill pertained to “His Lordship” and said that this was no way to treat high court bills. Tirankar reportedly replied that he was least bothered whose bill it was, whether a judge or even the chief justice.

According to the affidavit, Tirankar said he was not obliged to sanction bills which are not in conformity with the rules. Wilson also added that Tirankar used expletives against the chief justice.

The matter came up on October 3, when Tinaikar’s affidavit was presented denying all the charges and explaining why he did not sanction the bill. Tirankar said that neither on September 19 nor on 27, when Wilson approached him did he behave rudely but on the contrary explained why he had not passed the bill. He also said that leave aside judges, in his entire career he has not behaved rudely with anyone.

Tirankar said that on September 27, there were three persons who were near his table, Superintendent M B Patil, Auditor Dandekar and an advocate D Kamble. When his office received the showcause notice for contempt, the P&A officer conducted an inquiry. The trio submitted in writing that Wilson’s allegations were false and that they were also ready to depose before the court, he added. He said whether the charges are proved or not he was willing to tender his apology.