Point of Law:Contempt proceedings - unjust to initiate contempt proceedings without giving an opportunity to the respondents to contest the prayer for interim order in the writ petition. The order of which the breach is complained of is an ex parte order. Therefore, this is not a fit case to initiate the proceedings under the said Act of 1971

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.P.Hegde for the complainant and Smt. Nirmala appearing for the accused No.1.

2. The instant contempt petition is preferred by the complainant for the alleged disobedience of the interim order dated 30.09.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.147934/2020 in the following manner;

“Issue emergent notice to respondents returnable by 21.10.2020.

Interim stay as prayed for is granted till next date of hearing.

Office objections shall be complied in two weeks”.

3. The interim relief as prayed for in the writ petition is as under;

“It is, therefore prayed that pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order of removal dated 30.10.2019 issued by respondent No.2, which is produced as Annexure-E, and direct the reinstatement of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. From the above reading of the interim relief, it is apparent that interim relief sought for is in two parts i.e., the first part is, “to stay the operation of the order of removal dated 30.10.2019” and second part is, “to direct the reinstatement of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity”.

5. The facts in brief are that the complainant was visited with a penalty of removal from services after an inquiry by the competent authority by order dated 30.10.2019. That an appeal came to be preferred to the Appellate Authority and punishment imposed came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the complainant has preferred Writ Petition on 21.09.2020, that is, almost a year after her removal from the post of Deputy Chief Medical Officer with the first respondent-Corporation. The writ petition came to be listed on 30.09.2020 and interim order as detailed above came to be passed.

6. It is the case of the complainant that the relief granted by this Court came to be communicated to accused No.2 by e-mail on 03.10.2020, copy of which is produced at Annexure-C and hard copy of request letter was also served on the accused No.2 on the forenoon of 05.10.2020 demanding that she be permitted to join duty.

7. In the similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice while dealing with a similar situation was pleased to dispose of the contempt petition registered as C.C.C.No.362/2020. The observations of the Coordinate Bench at paragraph Nos.3 to 10 are pertinent and relevant for consideration of the instant contempt petition, which reads as under;

3. As can be seen from the order dated 4th December 2019, it is an expartead interim order by which, stay was granted to the order dated 17th September 2019. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge of reinstatement of the complainant into service.

4. The complainant has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the said Act of 1971’). The job of the complainant comes to an end after bringing to the notice of this Court the alleged incident of breach. Whether an action is to be initiated under the said Act of 1971 is a matter to be decided by the Court. The Court always retains a discretion in such matters.

5. As stated earlier, the complainant was removed from the post of Grama Sahayaka by the order dated 17th September 2019. After a lapse of more than two months, the said order was stayed. The respondents in the writ petition were not heard. The order of removal had become operative when the stay was granted. There is no specific order passed by the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the complainant.

6. At this stage, we must make useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF J & K vs MOHD. YAQOOB KHAN AND OTHERS. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision are relevant which read thus:

“5. We find great force in the argument of Mr Salve that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further proceeding in the co