Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
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
Versus
Lalit Narain Rajak, District Education Officer East Champaran, Motihari - Respondent
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1305 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.248 of 2020
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Contempt of Court - Non-compliance with Court Orders - Bihar School Examination Board - District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority - C.W.J.C. No. 3530/2013 - C.W.J.C. No. 13188/2014 - C.W.J.C. No. 5996/2015 - C.W.J.C. No. 977/2018 - M.J.C. No. 2980/2018 - C.W.J.C. No. 9288/2012 - C.W.J.C. No. 3530/2013 - C.W.J.C. No. 13188/2014 - C.W.J.C. No. 5996/2015 - C.W.J.C. No. 977/2018 - M.J.C. No. 2980/2018
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a series of legal proceedings stemming from the appointment and termination of a teacher, including appeals, challenges, and contempt petitions, due to non-compliance with court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The respondent, a retired District Education Officer, was found to have misled the Court and shown impertinence and contumacious attitude in not complying with the High Court’s orders, leading to the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings against him.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, contempt of court, harassment of the petitioner, and the appropriateness of the respondent's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent's deliberate and wilful disobedience of court orders, as well as his failure to show remorse, led to the Court's decision to initiate contempt proceedings against him.
Final Decision: The respondent was found guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to imprisonment of two days with a fine of Rs. 50,000.
JUDGMENT :
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 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, 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 the Distric
Wilful disobedience, as an essential element of civil contempt, requires a high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and involves a mental element of intentional, conscious, and calculated condu....
Contempt Petition - Merely because an order or decree is executable, that would not take away Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a matter under Act of 1971 on satisfaction that there has been violatio....
The court found no grounds for contempt as the government complied with orders despite delays, emphasizing compliance assessment only.
In contempt proceedings, the court has limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate claims beyond compliance issues as defined in prior orders, reaffirming the need for independent adjudication in sepa....
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
