Point of Law: Suo-Moto Criminal contempt proceedings - Mere pendency of the application, if any, before the learned CJM, Tinsukia, cannot be a ground to keep this proceeding pending before this Court.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel who has appeared as Amicus Curiae on the request of this Court made vide order dated 29.10.2021. We have also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing the respondent/alleged contemnor. Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court is also present.

2. This suo-moto criminal contempt proceeding has been registered under Section 12 read with 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, on the basis of the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in connection with I.A. (C) No. 3557/2019, whereby, a direction was issued to the Registry to register a Criminal Contempt case and issue notice upon the respondent, viz. Phagulal Prasad on the charge of deliberately producing and relying upon forged documents before this Court.

3. Upon receipt of notice, the respondent has appeared through the Legal Aid Counsel Mr. A. Bhattacahrya and filed his affidavit whereby, he has denied having any knowledge as regards the alleged forgery of the document and has stated that he had relied upon the document on a bona-fide belief that it was a genuine document. The respondent’s counsel has also questioned the maintainability of the Suo-Moto criminal contempt proceeding by urging that this matter does not come within the purview of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

4. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the factual matrix of this case. It appears from the materials available on record that the respondent herein was initially appointed as a honorary Assistant Teacher in the Panitola Hindi L.P. School. However, despite having worked for more than 10 (ten) years, his services was not regularized although the school was provincialised on 01.08.1977. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 932/1995, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 19.09.1995 by issuing the following directions:

“On hearing the learned counsel for the parties I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 (The Director of Elementary Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati) to make an enquiry about the averments made in the petition and if the averments are found to be correct and if the petitioner had put in 10 years of service as honorary teacher, the respondent no. 2 shall give regular appointment to the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the meantime the petitioner shall continue to work as honorary teacher in the school.

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.”

5. Despite the directions contained in the order dated 19.09.1995, no action was taken by the Department to regularize his services. Situated thus, the respondent had filed a Contempt Case being CoP(C) No. 260/1996, which was disposed of by the order dated 12.12.2005 by holding that the law as regards regularization of service of teachers in the L.P. Schools had changed inasmuch as there was no law presently in force which entitles a teacher to be regularized merely on rendering ten years of service.

6. It appears that by the order dated 29.10.2007 the service of the respondent was subsequently regularized and he had also received salary for the month of December, 2007. However, since then, he did not receive any salary. As such, the petitioner had once again approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 516/2011, with a prayer to direct the authorities to pay his arrear salary and allowances. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge by making the following directions:

“Having regard to the above, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam is directed to release the salary of the petitioner incl