Himani Joshi v. Bar Council of India and others

(iv) Award Cost of the Writ Petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed Office Superintendent in the office of the respondent no.2/ the Bar Council of Uttarakhand on 01.10.2015. Subsequently, she was issued 2 a show cause notice on 07.12.2020 that her appointment is against the rules, therefore, why her services may not be terminated. The petitioner did reply to the notice on 09.12.2020. Thereafter, the Bar Counsel of Uttarakhand resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner by resolution dated 04.01.2021. This resolution was challenged by the petitioner before the Bar Council of India whereby its operation was stayed by the Bar Council of India on 19.01.2021. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 25.09.2024, the Bar Council of India observed that since this Court is seized of the matter and the petitioner had already approached the police, there is no use of keeping the matter pending before the Bar Council of India. Accordingly, the proceedings were closed. This order dated

25.09.2024 of the Bar Council of India as well as the resolution dated

04.01.2021 of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand are impugned in the petition.

4. During the course of hearing, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand is in violation to the provisions of Rule 15 of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand Rules, 2014 (“the 2014 Rules”).

5. Rule 15 of the 2014 Rules is as follows:- “(a) No Member of the staff of the council shall be removed, dismissed, or retired compulsorily unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him provided that this rule shall not apply when he is removed or dismissed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude. (b) whenever an action is proposed to be taken against any member of the staff under Sub-Rule (a) above the Council shall frame charges, enquire into the same after giving sufficient opportunity to the members of staff as provided above and the decision of the Council and the members of the staff which shall be required to show cause why the proposed punishment 3 should not be given. After giving an opportunity to him to do so, the Council shall give its decision as regards the punishment to be given and it shall be enforced accordingly. It shall be lawful for the Council to award a punishment less severe than that indicated in the notice. (c) Whenever the member of the staff refused notice or after receipt of the notice does not offer an explanation within the time allowed or within such extended time as the Council may permit, it shall be deemed that he has no explanation to offer. (d) Pending enquiry into the charges provided for in sub-rules (a) and (b) above the Council may suspend a member of the staff. During the period of suspension, he shall be paid half (1/2) of his salary. In case the charges are not proved or are withdrawn, he shall be entitled to the balance of his salary during the period of suspension. (e) For the purpose of the enquired, the Council may delegate its powers to a Sub-Committee and the report of the Sub- Committee shall be duly placed before the Council for necessary action and the Chairman shall give effect to the decision of the Council.”

6. Today, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Uttarakhand submits that the petition is premature. Till date, the petitioner has not been removed from her service. He submits that the Bar Council of Uttarakhand had issued notice to the petitioner requiring her to show cause as to why her services may not be terminated. The petitioner in response to the notice has filed her reply. He submits that this is compliance of Section 15 (a) of the 2014 Rules. Learned senior counsel submits that Bar Council of Uttarakhand shall proceed afresh in the case in accordance with the provisions as contained under Rule 15 of the 2014 Rules.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the statement given by the learned Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttarakhand, all the resolutions of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand, by which the services of the petitioner have been decided to be terminated, becomes ineffective. 4

8. The Court takes on record the statement given by learned Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttarakhand.

9. The Bar Council of Uttarakhand had served a show-cause notice on 07.12.2020 on the petitioner, which was replied by her on

09.12.2020. Thereafter, resolution was passed for removal of the petitioner from service. Since, now a statement has been given that, from the stage when the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on

09.12.2020, the Bar Council of Uttarakhand shall proceed afresh, any resolution passed by the Bar Council of Uttarakhand post 09.12.2020 qua the petitioner with regard to her service, shall cease to have any effect.

10. In view of the statement given by the learned counsel for the Bar Council of Uttarakhand, nothing, survive in this petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

01.08.2025