RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA v. J. R. CHAUDHURY — 1995 DIGILAW 1150 (ALL)

B. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE instant case is a unique example of arrogance and belligerency of contemner, who though heads, the Government Industrial Training Institute, did not consider it necessary or atleast desirable, to apply his mind as to what may be the sanctity of the order passed by this Court. The factual matrix of this reveals that the applicant was appointed as an instructor with effect from 1-6-1989, in the Ratio and Television Section of thegovernment Industrial Training Institute, Rasra, Ballia (hereinafter called the institute ). Though, the appointment was made on daily wages but in order to deprive the applicant from the benefits of the continuity of service, the opposite parties gave artificial breaks in the services of the applicant. The services of the applicant had been terminated and he had been reappointed time and again. Being aggrieved of the last termination order dated 19-4-1991, the applicant challenged the same by filling the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13902 of 1991. This Court vide its order dated 2/05/1991, passed the following interim order :-"issue notice. Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order dated 19-4-1991. . . shall remain stayed. " ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1, Shri J. R. Chaudhari, the then principal of the said institute complied with the order dated 2-5-1991 and passed specific order on 13th May, 1991 in favouavour of the applicant. Opposite party No. 2, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava took over as principal of the said institute on 9/07/1993 and the said order of this Court was disobeyed willfully. It appears the record that the opposite party No. 3 wrote a letter to opposite party No. 2, Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava on 6-11-1993, authorising the opposite party No. 2 to appoint the Instructors on daily wages, as deligation of such power was considered necessary by the opposite party No. 3 so that the institute may function smoothly. The opposite party No. 2 who, in unambiguous and crystal clear language had been clothed with the power to appoint the daily wagers, did not give employment to the applicant on daily wages on the pretext that he would do so only after receiving the approval of the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 who, in unambiguous and crystal clear language had been clothed with the power to appoint the daily wagers, did not give employment to the applicant on daily wages on the pretext that he would do so only after receiving the approval of the opposite party No. 3. In order to circumvent the order of this Court dated 2-5-1991 and to make an employ to save his skin from the contempt proceedings, which the opposite party No. 2 could have anticipated, the opposite party No. 2 wrote a letter to opposite party No. 3 on 18-12-1993, (Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit) seeking the approval of opposite party No. 3 for the employment of the applicant in pursuance of the order of this Court. It is strange that in the last paragraph of the said letter, opposite party No. 2 himself had mentioned that vide letter No. 8190/t-1/0387/sa-91 dated 6-11-1993, the opposite party No. 3 had empowered the opposite party No. 2 to make the appointment of daily wagers till the duly selected persons are appointed. ( 3 ) THE applicant field the instant contempt petition and the opposite parties filed their counter affidavits. The only stand taken by the opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit is that the order of this Court could not be complied with as he could not secure the approval of the opposite party No. 3 for appointing the applicant. Learned Standing Counsel was confronted with fact situation as to what was the occasion for the opposite party No. 2 to write the said letter dated 18-12-1993 when the opposite party No. 3 had already authorised the opposite party No. 2 vide his letter dated 16-11-1993 to make the appointment of the daily wagers in general. Learned Standing Counsel could not give any satisfactory explanation whatsoever. ( 4 ) THERE is another aspect of the case as the opposite party No. 2 did not take appropriate step till today to get the said order dated 2/05/1991, annulled, modified, varied or vacated. Moreover, there could be no justification for seeking the approval of the opposite party No. 1 particularly when such authorisation approval had already been given in anticipation of appointments to be made on daily wages. Moreover, there could be no justification for seeking the approval of the opposite party No. 1 particularly when such authorisation approval had already been given in anticipation of appointments to be made on daily wages. The case was heard several times and had to be adjourned as the Court wanted to give full opportunity to the opposite party No. 2 to explain his conduct. Opposite party No. 2, who was present in the Court on 3-11-1995, straightway replied that he had taken over as the Principal of the said institute on 9/07/1993, and he has been transferred from the said institute on 2/09/1995, and thus he cannot be held responsible for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court and he is no more in a position to comply with the said order. His mere transfer cannot absolve him from his contumacious acts and thus the only relevant question for consideration before this Court is whether there was any justifiable cause or sufficient ground for the opposite party No. 2, not to comply with the order passed by this Court continuously for 2 years and 2 months. The opposite party No. 2 could not furnish any explanation whatsoever and when the judgement was reserved and the order for reserving the judgement had been transcribed the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, tried to throw some papers on the Court stating that the applicants service had been terminated long back and thus the order of this Court has become ineffective. The opposite party No. 2 had filed the counter affidavit long back i. e. on 8-3-1994 and he did not mention anything regarding the termination of the services of the applicant at all. The opposite party No. 2 did not express single word of sorrow or remorse and was notwilling by any means to tender his apology, the Court refused to accept the said document at such a belated stage as it might have been fabricated might have been merely a ruse to subterfuge the contempt proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 did not mention a single word that the said document also meant for tendering the apology. In the counter affidavit filled by the opposite party No. 2 he has mentioned that if this Court comes to the conclusion that any contempt has been committed by him he tenders apology, for the same. In the counter affidavit filled by the opposite party No. 2 he has mentioned that if this Court comes to the conclusion that any contempt has been committed by him he tenders apology, for the same. In my view this cannot be a heart felt apology. It is merely a paper apology that too a conditional one and is by all means meaningless. The only unescapable conclusion, which this Court may reach after considering the totality of the circumstances of this case is that the opposite party No. 2, Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava has committed the gross contempt of Court and the case against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. ( 5 ) THIS Court will be failing in its duty to protect the administration of justice from attempts to denigrate and lower the authority of the Courts, if contemner like the opposite party No. 2 is allowed to go un-punished and think it would be failure to perform one of its essential duties solemnly interested to this Court by constitution and the other statutes. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1995 (2) JT 587. ( 6 ) IN the case of Mohd. Aslam alias Bhura v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 442 , the Supreme Court has observed that in such cases if the contemner is not punished it will demolish public faith in the accepted constitutional institutions and Weaken peoples resolve to solve issues by peaceful means. It will destroy respect for that of law and the authority of Courts and seek to place individual authority and strength of numbers above wisdom of law. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY in the case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) SCC 757 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :-"the due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation. Anyone who makes an attempts to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice. . . renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. . . and no Court can ingore such conduct which has the tendency to sake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. . . . . . renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. . . and no Court can ingore such conduct which has the tendency to sake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. . . . the stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be deal with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. "similarly, in the case of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 , the Supreme Court has taken the view that the contemner should be given an adequate punishment and incareeration of the contemner must work as an eye opener for others and it must have a deterrent effect. The Court further observed that the tendency of wilful defiance of the order of the Court is required to be curbed, which requires some what deterrent sentence. ( 8 ) IN the cases of Smt. Pushpa Ben v. Narayan Das V. Baidyani, AIR 1979 SC 1536 , the Supreme Court has held that the sentence of imprisonment is an exception while the sentence of fine is the rule. In the instant case the opposite party No. 2 has wilfully defined the order of this Court, just for the sake of his arrogant and defaint attitude and thus the ends of justice will meet only if Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, opposite party No. 2 is awarded a Civil Imprisonment for two weeks and a fine of Rs. 2000. 00 is imposed upon him. In case on non-payment of fine he will further undergo a sentence of Civil Imprisonment for two weeks. The opposite party No. 2. , Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava shall deposit the said amount of fine with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia within for weeks from today. The sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of 30 days from today so that the opposite party No. 2 may avail the opportunity of filing the statutory appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the expiry of 30 days from today. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the expiry of 30 days from today. ( 9 ) REGISTRY is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia within a week from today. The present Principal of the Government Industrial Training Institute, Rasra, Ballia is directed to ensure the compliance of the order passed by this Court in favour of the applicant on 2-5-1991. ( 10 ) THE Contempt Petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed. .