Back
1996 Supreme(Pat) 447
PATNA HIGH COURT
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
Mantosh Kumar Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
M.J.C. No. 1468 of 1995 ;
Decided On : JULY 23, 1996
A person who wilfully disobeys an order of the court is guilty of contempt of court.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT - [RADHA MOHAN PRASAD, J.] - [M. J. C. No.2298 OF 1995] - [CONTEMPT OF COURT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ - DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH COURT ORDER FOR TRAINING OF DALPATIS - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - SHOW CAUSE FILED BY DIRECTOR - CONTEMPT ESTABLISHED - FINE IMPOSED.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, low-paid employees, promptly went to attend the training from 1st July, 1996 pursuant to the representation made before this court, but were not allowed to join, as on 29th June, 1996 a fax message was sent, about which no communication was sent to the petitioners either through a letter or by issuing notice in the newspaper.
Finding of the Court:
The aforementioned facts leave no room for doubt that O. P. No.2 acted in utter and intentional disregard of the orders of this Court considering himself to be above this Court, as is also evident from the fact that if he had respect for the orders passed by this Court and had any intention to comply the same, he had sufficient time to take immediate steps for arranging for the training from 1st July, 1996, as was informed to this court even after the sanction was accorded by the Finance Department. But instead of complying the same, he was taken all kinds of false plea in paragraph 10 of his suplementary show cause in his defence including the fact that the order dated 20-5-96 was produced before him by the petitioners along with the representation dated 2-7-1996 for the first time, when in fact, even prior to that he had issued the Fax message on 29-6-1996 (Annexure-D) to his show cause defering the date of training from 1st July, 1996 to a date to be notified later. The aforesaid actions of O. P. No.2 have led to unnecessary harassment to the 34 Dalpatis including the petitioners, who are low-paid employees, despite the order of this court by incuring expenses over travelling to Ranchi and back, besides lodging at Ranchi from 1st July, 1996 to 11th july, 19% from their own pocket when they were entitled for the same from the government.
Issues: Whether the Director, Panchayati Raj wilfully disobeyed the order of the court by delaying the training of Dalpatis?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Director, Panchayati Raj had wilfully disobeyed the order of the court by delaying the training of Dalpatis. The court observed that the Director had sufficient time to take immediate steps for arranging the training from 1st July, 1996, as was informed to the court even after the sanction was accorded by the Finance Department. However, instead of complying with the order, the Director took false pleas in his defence, including the fact that the order dated 20-5-96 was produced before him by the petitioners along with the representation dated 2-7-1996 for the first time, when in fact, even prior to that he had issued the Fax message on 29-6-1996 deferring the date of training from 1st July, 1996 to a date to be notified later. The court further observed that the Director's actions had led to unnecessary harassment to the Dalpatis, who are low-paid employees, despite the order of the court.
Final Decision: The court held the Director, Panchayati Raj guilty of contempt of court and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to be paid from his own pocket, out of which Rs.2500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) shall be deposited in this court and Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) shall be paid to the petitioners within a week from today, failing which the O. P. No.2 shall have to serve a sentence of one weeks simple imprisonment.
1. Radha Mohan Prasad, J.-By this application, the petitioners pray for initiation of a contempt proceeding against Shri Ajay Kumar, Director, directorate of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna (opposite party no.2) who has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court as well as the undertaking given to this Court as is mentioned in the order dated 20th may, 1996 passed in M. J. C. No.2298 of 1995 and for punishing the said opposite party for the same.
2. Petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition bearing C. W. J. C. No.4562 of 1995 in this Court seeking direction to the respondents not to absorb the surplus employees of the consolidation scheme on the post of Panchayat Sewak in pursuance of letter No.5448 dated 24-6-1989 and further for directing the respondents to send the name of the petitioner for training of a Panchayat sewak in terms of the letter of the directorate dated 15th June, 1994 and thereafter to take steps for appointment in accordance with law.
3. The court, while hearing the said writ case after noticing from the counter-affidavit filed in the said case as well as the letter of the District magistrate dated 16-8-1995 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and the. . . . . . . . (sic)of the Director dated 25-8-1995 (Annexure 9 to the writ-petition) that the proposal to adjust/absorb the services of the surplus employees of the consolidation scheme against the post of panchayat Sewak have been modified to the extent that such consideration shall be given after appointing all the Dal-patis who are duly qualified, held that there may not be any hurdle against the district Magistrate to send the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated person for training. Accordingly, the Court directed that the concerned Director shall issue necessary direction so that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons can complete their training in the batch in question.
4. However, when the said direction of this Court was not complied, petitioner No.1 filed M. J. C. No.2298 of 1995 for initiating contempt proceeding against the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram and other concerned officials and to punish them.
5. In the said contempt petition notices were issued to the opposite parties and when after several indulgences granted and direction issued to the District Magistrate to appear in person, he did not appear a warrant of arrest had to be issued against him, whereupon the district Magistrate appeared and filed a show cause.
6. After not being satisfied with the said show cause in regard to the compliance of the direction of this Court as also considering his deliberate action, the Court took serious view of the matter, whereupon a prayer was made for adjournment for filing further show cause also on the question for imposition of punishment.
7. On 23-5-1996 a supplementary show cause was filed by the District magistrate annexing a letter issued by him vide memo No.158 dated 16-5-1996 in compliance of the aforementioned order of this Court given in the connected writ case. By the aforementioned letter, 34 Dalpatis, including the present petitioners, were directed to join the central Training Institute, Brahmway at ranchi on 1st July.19% for the training of Dalpatis. It was stated in the said supplementary show cause that the resolution dated 3-12-1994 of the Selection committee for appointment of panchayat Sewak sent by the District magistrate, Rohtas had been rejected, vide Memo No.46/c dated 10-5-1996 by the Department. In paragraph 4 it was stated that after issuance of the aforementioned order, the District magistrate (opposite party No.1) had given a note to the department to send untrained 34 Dalpatis for training and thereafter the Government accepted the said proposal and the same was communicated by the Director, Panchayati raj to him. Accordingly, he decided to send them for training and all 36 untrained Dalpatis, including the petitioners, had been asked to join the trainin
