Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.S.Garg, J.
Shiv Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 9019 of 2003 ;
Decided On : MARCH 22, 2004
Service Law- Time bound promotion-When the government introduced the scheme of time bound promotion the petitioner can not be denied the benefits arising there from only on account of not completing stipulated years of required service, if he is otherwise eligible or found suitable-Issuance of notice to show cause to some incumbent or some employee of the government would not prove bona fides of an officer issuing notices because it is a requirement of law and if there is no such requirement then that would be requirement of principles of natural justice-Simply by issuing show cause notice an authority can not say that any order passed subsequently would be a good order-When High Court in CWJC No. 4369 of 1994 had observed that despite the order of re-appointment by the authority the petitioner would be entitied to time bound promotion if he is otherwise eligible and found suitable authority was required to go through the order passed by High Court because the same was within his knowledge-It was absolute disrespect and ignoring the orders of the High Court and the interest of the petitioner which observing that promotion given to the petitioner was contrary to the order of re-appointment (Paras 9 and 12)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 12 read with section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-ln a matter of contempt where false statements or misleading statements are made that adds insult to the injury and would not insulate the petitioner-Prayer for benefit under Offenders Act-The provisions contained in section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act would not apply to matter where a particular person is to be tried under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act-Section 3 of the Act in fact is in relation to the offences which are in breach of the ordinary law which can be dealt with under the said provision-The contempt Act relates to the magesty of the High Court and the other courts-When a person commits contempt of the lawful authority of any court then he exposes himself to the risk and he can not be allowed to say that he be extended the benefit of section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act-In a matter of contempt when it is known to the alleged contemner that he has committed a wrong then instead of coming out with false pleadings, bad arguments and illegal and absurd defence, he should come and say that he had committed a wrong and he be therefore exonerated-To tender an apology is not the end of the matter-One must express from the core that he is sorry to what he has done and he is really ashamed for undermining the authority of High Court and he must also inform the High Court that for a particular reason he could not understand the orders of High Court-Simply to say that a· person has not earned any bad remark during the period he served the government and he is in the whirlpool of sorrow would not be end of the matter-Conduct of contemner not exhibiting innocence here-Apology rejected-Simple imprisonment of two months awarded with fine subject to securing favourable order by Higher Forum. (Paras 7, 28 to 32)
1996 Cr. LJ 2755-Referred to.
2000(3) SCC 171, 1992 Cr. LJ 1768-Distinguished.
R.S.Garg, J.
1. Shri Bimal Kumar, Sen or counsel with Shri Dineshwar Mishra opened his argument firstly referring to the affidavit dated 18.12.2003 with which order of the Supreme Court has been annexed. After taking me through the order passed by the Supreme Court he submitted that he be allowed to refer to the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by this Court. After taking me through some portion of that order Shri Bimal Kumar, Senior Counsel made his submission that in the proceeding dated 22.9.2003 this Court had recorded a finding that on the date Mr. G.S. Kang has passed the order, the said petitioner had not completed ten years of service. This Court requested Mr. Bimal Kumar Senior Counsel to read that finding from the order dated 22.9.2003. After taking me through number of paragraphs learned senior counsel read internal page 11 of the order that reads as under:-
-
"Unfortunately Annexure-1 did not take into consideration the observations made by this Court rather the directions issued by this Court. I could understand the bona fides of the order if Mr. G.S. Kang after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court had passed the orders observing that the petitioner would not be eligible because he had not completed ten years from the date of his reappointment."
2. This order nowhere says nor records a finding that the petitioner did not complete ten years. This order simply amounts to say that if Mr. G.S. Kang in his order had observed that the petitioner did not complete ten years, therefore, he would not be entitled to promotion then this Court could understand it. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is just contrary to the records and tantamounts to misreading of the order.
3. At this stage learned senior counsel says that before proceeding further in the matter the observation made by this Court in order dated 22.9.2003 which are as follows be also observed :-
-
"I could also appreciate if the order Annexure-1 had said that the second time bound promotion would not be given to the petitioner because from the date of his reappointment he had not completed 25 years qualifying services."
4. Learned counsel submits that a juxtapose reading of both these portions of the order would lead to an inference that this Court had recorded a finding that the writ petitioner did not complete ten years service.
5. This Court has also heard Mr. G.S. Kang personally so that either Mr. G.S. Kang or his counsel may not have the grievance that they were not heard fully.
6. I pointedly asked Mr. G.S. Kang that in my order dated 22.9.2003 where he could read or find any finding recorded by this Court that the petitioner did not complete ten years. To this Mr. G.S. Kang says that when he engages a counsel his counsel has to argue the matter. This Court finds that on certain factual aspects the client has to impart an instruction to the counsel but on the legal aspects of the matter counsel has to apply his legal acumen. This Court again asked him that whether this court had ever recorded a finding in its order dated 22.9.2003 that the petitioner did not complete ten years. This time Mr. G.S. Kang says that there is no such finding.
7. it is most unfortunate that even in contempt matter a senior counsel is taking the Court for a ride. The learned counsel makes those allegations which cannot be substantiated on the strength of the record. After taking me through the complete records he was unable to find even a single line to show or suggest that this Court had recorded a finding that the writ petitioner had not completed ten years. Tilt last Shri Bimal Kumar Senior counsel was not ready and willing to say that he had made a wrong statement but he continued saying that this Court did record a finding that the original petitioner did not complete ten years. In a matter of contempt when false statements or misleading statements are made that adds insult to the injury and would not insulate the petitioner, this
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
