In-Re, Suo Motu Cognizance Taken ... vs Lalit Narain Rajak, District ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 515 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
         Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1305 of 2022
                                In
           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.248 of 2020
======================================================

In-Re, Suo Motu cognizance taken by the Court Vide Order Dated 18.07.2022 Arsing out of C.W.J.C. No.- 248 of 2020 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus Lalit Narain Rajak, District Education Officer East Champaran, Motihari.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mangalam, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP 17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31-01-2023

1. A Brief facts need to be noticed which culminated into the present

proceedings of suo moto contempt against the respondent who is a

retired District Education Officer of East Champaran, Motihari are as

under.

2. A writ petition was preferred by one Kumari Poonam, wherein it

was stated that she was appointed as a teacher at Gram Panchayat

Raj, Semwapur on 01.10.2007. She obtained training and also passed

Teachers Elementary Test. After about two years one Munni Kumari

preferred an appeal before the District Teachers Appointment

Appellate Authority, East Champaran at Motihari, which was allowed

on 04.09.2012 and the petitioner's appointment was set aside with

direction to appoint Munni Kumari in her place. The order was

challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9288/2012 and this

Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority, whereafter the Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

District Teachers Appellate Authority decided the case on 09.01.2013

with direction to terminate the employment of Banarsi Kumar Sahani

holding that he was wrongly appointed and further to appoint Munni

Kumari in the place of the petitioner and Kumari Poonam in the

place of Banarsi Kumar Sahani.

Accordingly, the Panchayat Secretary issued orders on 26.08.2013,

appointing the petitioner who joined on 15.04.2013. The order of the

Appellate Authority dated 09.01.2013 was challenged by Banarsi

Kumar Sahani before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3530/2013 and also

filed a petition before the Block Education Officer alleging the

academic certificate of the petitioner being forged. The Block

Education Officer on basis of the complaint referred the matter to the

District Programme Officer Establishment and District Education

Officer of Motihari and the salary of the petitioner was withheld with

direction to appear before him with all her testimonials. She

produced her certificates which were sent for verification to the Bihar

School Examination Board who declared the certificates of the

petitioner to be genuine. In the meanwhile, the Employment Unit of

Gram Panchayat Raj, Semuapur held a special meeting and decided

to terminate service of the petitioner and appoint Banarsi Kumar

Sahani on 28.05.2014. The District Education Officer sought

explanation from the Mukhiya as to how the petitioner services had

been dispensed and Banarsi Kumar Sahani appointed in her place

further directed to recover salary from Banarsi Kumar Sahani, Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

whereafter the District Education Officer issued another order on

11.11.2014 for issuance of payment of salary to the petitioner which

would be subject to a decision of the C.W.J.C. No. 3530/2013

preferred the Banarsi Kumar Sahani. The same was withdrawn by

Banarsi Kumar Sahani on 07.01.2016 and the petitioner was forced

to challenge the decision of the selection committee dated

28.05.2014, whereby the petitioner was removed and Banarsi Kumar

Sahani had been appointed before this Court by filing of C.W.J.C.

No. 13188/2014 the same was disposed of on 28.03.2016 with liberty

to approach the Appellate Authority. Another writ petition bearing

C.W.J.C. No. 5996/2015, filed by Banarsi Kumar Sahani challenging

the order dated 24.10.2014, by which a show cause notice was issued

to the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary but the same was withdrawn

with a statement that his grievance has been redressed. The petitioner

then approached the District Appellate Authority, who vide its

judgment dated 06.11.2017, disposed of the appeal of the petitioner

recording a finding that the certificates of the petitioner was genuine

but did not quash the decision of the selection committee dated

28.05.2014, whereby Banarsi Kumar Sahani had been appointed in

place of the petitioner and the services of the petitioner had been

terminated. The petitioner again approached this Court with C.W.J.C.

No. 977/2018 which was decided on 02.05.2018 with direction to

implement the order of the District Appellate Authority dated

06.11.2017 and directed the respondent to implement the decision of Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

the District Teachers Appellate Authority in letter and spirit with all

consequential benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a

contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 2980/2018 before this Court,

whereafter the respondent released the salary up to July 2019 of the

petitioner which was noticed by the High Court and the liberty was

granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if the

grievance is still not redressed. As soon as the contempt proceedings

were dropped in aforesaid terms, the District Education Officer

issued an order on 11.11.2019 stating that as the contempt

proceedings have been dropped and it was observed that the

unnecessary pressure exercised by the petitioner on the District

Education Officer is unjustified with further direction that work

ought not be taken from him and with further direction to the Block

Education Officer that if work is taken, accountability shall be put on

the In-charge Principal. It was further directed that proceedings being

taken against the petitioner for unwanted behaviour.

3. Having noticed these facts, this Court vide order dated 18.07.2022

observed that the order dated 11.11.2019 issued under the signatures

of the District Education Officer inappropriately mentions that the

petitioner has tried to put unjustified pressure on him and directed to

stop her salary and further directed Block Education Officer not to

take work from her immediately after the Court had dropped the

contempt proceedings initiated against him. The Court contempt

proceedings were dropped upon his giving assurance that he shall Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

comply with the Court's order.

4. Thus, finding that he had misled the Court in dropping the

contempt proceedings initiated against him for non-compliance of

orders passed by this Court wherein directions were issued to

implement the District Appellate Authority's Order, suo moto

contempt proceedings were initiated against him as he had prima-

facie committed contempt in the face of the Court.

5. The contemnor was put to notice. Reply has been filed by the

contemnor alleging that the Teacher Kumari Poonam along with her

husband had mis-behaved with him and were pressurizing and the

payment order had already been done till July 2019. After July 2019,

she regularly pressurized the office for payment of salary for which

guidelines were sought from the District Programme Officer. The

contempt proceedings were dropped on 16.10.2019 when it was

informed that the payment has been made. Thereafter an order was

passed dated 11.11.2019 not to take work from her. A legal advice

was also obtained from Government Pleader on 04.01.2020.

6. This Court on 09.01.2023 has noticed that the tenor of the reply

does not reflect any apologetic behaviour of the contemnor and he

does not seem to be having any remorse in passing the orders and

therefore the case was adjourned to be heard on the question of

punishment. The contemnor thereafter, has filed a second show cause

and has prayed for unconditional apology.

7. I have considered the submission. This Court finds that the action Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

of the respondent is not pardonable. He has shown impertinence and

contumatious attitude in not complying with the High Court's orders.

Not only this, the contemnor has also proceeded to interpret the

Court's order in his own manner so as to allow another person who

was wrongly appointed in the place of the petitioner to continue.

After the Court took a lenient view and dropped the contempt

proceedings on an assurance made that the salary shall be released to

the petitioner. He proceeded to pass the order dated 11.11.2019. The

contemnor has in reply to the show cause notice, submitted

unqualified and unconditional apology and further submitted that he

has rendered unblemished service with the State Government and

apologizes for any mistake committed by him during discharge of his

official duties stating that the order which was issued by him was not

intentional.

8. However, this Court is not satisfied with such an apology which is

only a mere lip-service. Officers who hold important post in the State

Government are expected to be more vigilant towards their duties

and are expected to comply with the Court's orders in their true letter

and spirit without any favour to any person. Their actions reveal their

intentions.

9. In the present case, on account of his action, the petitioner has

been harassed and made to run from pillar to post and file petitions

one after the other in the High Court. The contemnor therefore, ought

not be left free merely because he has retired, as it would set a wrong Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

example.

10. The Apex Court in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J.

Vasudevan as reported in 1995 (5) SCC 619 has held as under :-

"11. Question is whether it is open to the respondent to take at this stage this volte-face step. It is seen that all through the Government was a party. When the direction was given in IA No. 3 filed by the petitioner, it was not brought to our notice that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion, in contradistinction with Dasegowda, or any other. When the claim inter se had been adjudicated and the claim of the petitioner had become final and that of Dasegowda was negatived, it is no longer open to the Government to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of the orders passed by this Court by hovering over the rules to get round the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the orders passed by this Court. Thus it is clear that the officers concerned have deliberately made concerted effort to disobey the orders passed by this Court to deny the benefits to the petitioner. So, we are left with no option but to hold that the respondent has deliberately and wilfully, with an intention to defeat the orders of this Court, passed the impugned order.

12. Shri Hegde submits that the respondent-contemner was bona fide under the impression that he had to consider the inter se seniority of all the persons; he had no intention to deliberately disobey the orders of this Court and that, therefore, sentence of imprisonment may not be awarded as punishment. He also argued that the contemner is at the fag end of his career, and so, sentence of imprisonment may not be imposed.

13. Having considered these contentions and given our due consideration, we think that there is no justification to accede to the contentions raised by the learned counsel to Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

take a lenient view. The reasons are obvious. As stated earlier, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court the Government had passed an order directing the Corporation to implement the order. When the Corporation had passed a resolution creating a supernumerary post and to fill that post by accommodating Dhananjaya with consequential benefits, the Government was only to give effect to the order as passed by this Court on 26-7-1993. But instead of giving effect to the resolution, the Government volte-face exercised the power to see that the order is not given effect to. If the respondent had really harboured under any doubt, he would have asked for clarification. Instead, the Court was prayed for extension of time on 10-5-1995 for compliance which accordingly was given.

14. Question is whether there is any extenuating circumstance to show leniency in imposing the sentence. Considering the question in this backdrop, we are of the opinion that there is no extenuating circumstance at all, as after promoting Venkatesh, nothing at all could have reasonably stood in the way of the petitioner to get appointed to the supernumerary post of Additional Chief Engineer created by the Corporation. It is only the defiant attitude of the Government which derived him that post.

15. Accordingly, while finding the respondent guilty of committing contempt, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In addition, the Government is directed to give effect to the resolution passed by the Corporation with all the consequential benefits as ordered earlier. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly." The Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj & Ors.

as reported in 2014 (16) SCC 204 has held as under :-

"11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 202 : (1993) 23 ATC 400] , Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 :

2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] , Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh [Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21] , Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya [Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] , Sahdeo v. State of U.P. [Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus [National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 481 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 172] .)

12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is "wilful". The word "wilful" introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. "Wilful" means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely". Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct." (Vide S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.

Pattabiraman [S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao [Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255 : AIR 1989 SC 2185] , Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana [Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332 : AIR 1995 SC 308] , Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa [Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282] , Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha [Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1] , State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122 : AIR 2006 SC 258] and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE [Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, (2013) 9 SCC 753] .)"

11. In view of above, as this Court has already held the contemnor Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

guilty of contempt of Court for which he deserves to be punished in

terms of the Section 12(3) of the Contempt of the Court's Act,

1971. Taking into consideration, the disrespect shown by the

contemnor to the orders passed by this Court from time to time as

noticed above, he does not deserve any sympathy but considering

that he has retired which is an extenuating circumstance and

punishment should not be severe; therefore, in the interest of purity

of administration of justice, the respondent is punished with

imprisonment of two days of Civil Jail with fine of sum of Rs.

50,000 (Fifty Thousand) to be paid to the petitioner. The contemnor

is directed to be arrested and sent to Central Jail, Beur Patna.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)

sachin/-

          AFR/NAFR
          CAV DATE                   11.01.2023
          Uploading Date
          Transmission Date

Patna High Court MJC No.1305 of 2022 dt. 31-01-2023

Later on After pronouncing of the judgment, the counsel for the

contemnor raised for suspending the sentence as there is a right of

appeal existing in the Section 19 in the Contempt of the Court's

Act 1971, which provides for suspension of sentence passed by the

Court. This Court deems it appropriate to suspend the sentence for

one week for allowing the contemnor to file an appeal subject to

submitting surety of the sum of Rs. 20,000 to the satisfaction of the

Registrar General, Patna High Court.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) sachin/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                11.01.2023
Uploading Date
Transmission Date