Allahabad High Court
Karan Singh vs Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, M.D. Up ... on 25 June, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1991 of 2021
Applicant :- Karan Singh
Opposite Party :- Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, M.D. Up Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Wasim Alam,Anil Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 8.1.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.62673 of 2008 (Karan Singh v. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. & Anr.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Wasim Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents, even in the revised call.
The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2008. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 4.11.2008 has been passed for recovery of Rs.2,96,584/- on the ground that the recovery of arrears of loan from the agriculturist Sri Balram, is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was merely an Assistant Field Officer, whose responsibility was to make a spot inspection, so as to identify the borrower and his need for money and also his immovable property i.e., Bhumidhari land and its up to date revenue record. The loan was granted by the Branch Managing Committee of the bank to the borrower Sri Balram after being satisfied with the papers filed by Sri Balram and the immovable property was mortgaged for security. All these exercise was done by the Branch Manager of the bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it cannot be a ground for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner who is a retired employee. The entire action is arbitrary, illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He further submits that no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated by the respondent bank against the petitioner before his retirement. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 504 (Paragraph-6).
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was an Assistant Field Officer and his duty was to make a spot inspection, so as to identify the borrower and his need for money and up to date status of the immovable property in revenue record. The loan was granted by the Branch Manager/Managing Committee of the Bank after scrutiny of papers of immovable property, which was mortgaged for security. These facts have not been denied by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioner's responsibility was mainly to collect the necessary information about the ownership of the borrower. The impugned order has been passed on the ground that the recovery of Rs. 2,96,584/- from the borrower Sri Balram is doubtful. The impugned order does not say that the amount is non recoverable. The impugned order has not assigned any role of the petitioner for grant of loan to the borrower Sri Balram or that the petitioner acted fraudulently for grant of loan to the aforesaid borrower. The petitioner has admittedly retired from service on 31.1.2008. No disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order in so far as it provides for recovery of Rs. 2,96,584/- from the petitioner or for withholding of his post retirement dues, is wholly arbitrary and illegal and is, therefore, quashed. The respondents shall pay the post retirement benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law within two months, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest @ Rs.7% per annum.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.6.2021
SP/
