<p>Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated proceedings in a PIL seeking the removal of Charanjit Singh Bakshi as the additional public prosecutor of Chandigarh and senior panel counsel of the Centre.</p>.<p>The petition filed by Sanjeev Kochhar and Thakur Amandeep Singh challenged Bakshi's appointment, citing alleged gross misconduct and legal disqualifications.</p>.<p>Representing the petitioners, advocate Sumit Mehta and his legal team presented the case before the high court.</p>.<p>The petition contended that Bakshi allegedly secured his appointments through fraudulent concealment of serious misconduct, including the unauthorised recording of court proceedings and the manipulation of judicial records.</p>.Patriotic fervour mark Independence Day celebrations in Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh.<p>Advocate Mehta emphasized the gravity of these allegations, claiming that Bakshi's actions not only violated the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.</p>.<p>In a hearing presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal last month, the court stated that while the petition appeared lacking in immediate substance, the serious nature of the allegations warranted a detailed response from Bakshi.</p>.<p>As a result, the court issued a notice to Bakshi and his appointing authorities, demanding their replies by September 23.</p>.<p>In his arguments, advocate Mehta outlined Bakshi's disqualification based on two successive criminal contempt proceedings.</p>.<p>According to the petition, Bakshi was found guilty of making unauthorised recordings of judicial proceedings, a violation that should have rendered him ineligible to hold public office under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and related high court rules.</p>.<p>Advocate Mehta claimed that key judicial files linked to these contempt cases had mysteriously disappeared, preventing proper legal scrutiny and enabling Bakshi to continue in his role.</p>.<p>The petitioners have sought Bakshi's removal from his posts and the recovery of public funds paid to him during his tenure as the additional public prosecutor and senior panel counsel.</p>.<p>They argued that his fraudulent appointment had misused taxpayer money and set a dangerous precedent for public office appointments in the judiciary.</p>.<p>The next hearing in this case is scheduled for September 23.</p>
<p>Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated proceedings in a PIL seeking the removal of Charanjit Singh Bakshi as the additional public prosecutor of Chandigarh and senior panel counsel of the Centre.</p>.<p>The petition filed by Sanjeev Kochhar and Thakur Amandeep Singh challenged Bakshi's appointment, citing alleged gross misconduct and legal disqualifications.</p>.<p>Representing the petitioners, advocate Sumit Mehta and his legal team presented the case before the high court.</p>.<p>The petition contended that Bakshi allegedly secured his appointments through fraudulent concealment of serious misconduct, including the unauthorised recording of court proceedings and the manipulation of judicial records.</p>.Patriotic fervour mark Independence Day celebrations in Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh.<p>Advocate Mehta emphasized the gravity of these allegations, claiming that Bakshi's actions not only violated the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.</p>.<p>In a hearing presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal last month, the court stated that while the petition appeared lacking in immediate substance, the serious nature of the allegations warranted a detailed response from Bakshi.</p>.<p>As a result, the court issued a notice to Bakshi and his appointing authorities, demanding their replies by September 23.</p>.<p>In his arguments, advocate Mehta outlined Bakshi's disqualification based on two successive criminal contempt proceedings.</p>.<p>According to the petition, Bakshi was found guilty of making unauthorised recordings of judicial proceedings, a violation that should have rendered him ineligible to hold public office under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and related high court rules.</p>.<p>Advocate Mehta claimed that key judicial files linked to these contempt cases had mysteriously disappeared, preventing proper legal scrutiny and enabling Bakshi to continue in his role.</p>.<p>The petitioners have sought Bakshi's removal from his posts and the recovery of public funds paid to him during his tenure as the additional public prosecutor and senior panel counsel.</p>.<p>They argued that his fraudulent appointment had misused taxpayer money and set a dangerous precedent for public office appointments in the judiciary.</p>.<p>The next hearing in this case is scheduled for September 23.</p>