Judgment 1. The petitioners were the employees of the Bihar State Financial Corporation : petitioner No. 1 was dismissed and petitioner No. 2 was compulsorily retired from service on certain charges which the Board of Directors of the Carporation in its meeting, dated 24-06-1994, accepted as having been established against them following departmental proceeding. The two petitioners have challenged their dismissal/compulsory retirement from service in two separate writ petitions being C. W. J. C. Nos. 3861 and 3862 of 1994 which remain pending admission before this Court. 2. This petition has been filed on their behalf for initiating a contempt proceeding against opposite party No. 2, who is at present the Managing Director of the Corporotion. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid two writ petitions opposite party No. 2 made certain statements concerning the two petitioners and got them published in newspapers and broad-cast by the radio. It is submitted that the action of opposite party No.2 tended to interfere with the course of justice and was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and, hence, amounted to criminal contempt of this Court. 3. The material facts for considering the petitioners contention are brief and simple. The aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for admission on June 28, 1994. The writ petitions were originally filed impleading the Managing Director of the Corporation as a party respondent and Mr Ashok Kumar Singh, the incumbent of the office at the material time, was not impleaded in person. However as there were allegations of mala fide, permission was granted on the basis of prayer made in an amendment petition to implead Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh as a party respondent. 4. Mr P. K. Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation and its officials, was then present in court. One Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh being added as a party respondent he stated that he would accept notice on Mr. Singhs behalf also and would file a Vakalatnama received from him. The cases were, thus, adjourned to enable Mr. Shahi to file a counter affidavit so that the cases may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5. It appears that on the next day, June 29, 1994. Mr. Singhs behalf also and would file a Vakalatnama received from him. The cases were, thus, adjourned to enable Mr. Shahi to file a counter affidavit so that the cases may be finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. 5. It appears that on the next day, June 29, 1994. Mr. Singh, opposite party No. 2 in this case in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Corporation addressed a press conference and the statements made by him in course of the press conference were published in the different newspapers on June 30, 1994. His statements were also broad-cast by the radio in the Pradeshik Samachar bulletin at 07.30 p.m. on 29-06 1994. The photo stat copies of the newspapers clippings of the daily Hindustan, the daily Hindustan Time and the daily Times of India and the extract from the Pradeshik Samachar of the relevant date have been endorsed as Annexures 2 to 5 respectively. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the action of opposite party No. 2 in issuing the statements relating to them while their writ petitions were pending in this Court amounted to putting them on a public trial in utter disregard of the pending judicial proceedings and was clearly calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. 6. We have heard Mr. Basudeo Prasad at length, who strongly urged that a proceeding for criminal contempt of Court be initiated against opposite party No. 2. 7. We have perused the newspaper reports in question and we are of the opinion that press conference was in the nature of the exercise for the image building of the Corporation. It was stated that the Corporation has suffered heavy losses due to the financial irregularities committed by its senior officers (no names were mentioned in this regard for a long time). The reports also contained the measures proposed in the press conference for salvaging the Corporation and to make its functioning more efficient. It was also stated in the press conference that a number of officials including the two petitioners were dismissed/compulsorily retired from service on proved charges. The reports also contained the measures proposed in the press conference for salvaging the Corporation and to make its functioning more efficient. It was also stated in the press conference that a number of officials including the two petitioners were dismissed/compulsorily retired from service on proved charges. What exactly was stated in respect of the two petitions as appearing from the newspaper reports is as follows ; (i) The Hindustan Times : "He said that the dismissal of three officers and compulsory retirement of one was the culmination of the protracted enquiry against them, the guilt of the officers concerned has been conclusively proved, he added." (ii) The Times of India : "He told the newsmen that the services of the A. G. Ms. of B S F C Mr. B. B. Singh. Mr. Manik Ved Sea and Deputy Manager, Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, have been terminated, while the Additional General Manager, Mr. Alok Kumar Verma has been given voluntary retirement. A number of other officials including Manager........have been suspended and departmental proceeding have been started against them." (iii) Hindustan : Translated into English "Ashok Kumar Singh, the Managing Director of the Gorporotion today stated in course of the press conference that M/s. B. B.Singh, Manik Ved Sen and Alok Kumar Sinha were dismissed from serving for makiag wrong payment of Biscay Date Products of Ranchi and for different other financial irregularities. He also said that Alok Kumar Verma, the Manager of the Ranchi Branch had been retired under the compulsory retirement scheme of the Corporation." 8. On a careful reading of the newspaper reports we are of the considered opinion that what was said in respect of the two petitioners was no more than a statement of fact. It is not in dispute that certain charges were made against the petitioners and they were subjected to a departmental proceeding in which the charges are said to have been established following which they were dismissed/cornpulsorily retired from service. The validity and the legality of the dismissal order came for consideration before this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions but the fact of the petitioners dismissal/compulsory retiremement from service on charges established in a departmental proceeding cannot be disputed. 9. We, therefore, see the report as mere statement of facts and find nothing therein tending to interfere with the administration of justice. 10. 9. We, therefore, see the report as mere statement of facts and find nothing therein tending to interfere with the administration of justice. 10. It must, however, be recorded at this stage that we feel that opposite party No. 2 chose rather an inopportune time to hold his press conference. He would, perhaps, have been well advised to curb the common proclivity to attract media attention and should have refrained from making any statements regarding the two petitioners as the question of the validity and legality of their dismissal/compulsory retirement had already come to the Court and as we can presume from the narration of the facts that this fact had come to his knowledge. But his action, though not strictly proper, does not constitute any criminal contempt and does not warrant initiation of a proceeding for contempt of Court. 11. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel, has relied upon some decisions in support of his contentions. These are as follows : (i) A decision of the S.C. in the case of Re. P. C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821 . In our opinion, that decision has no application to the facts of this case. In the cited case Mr. Sen, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, had made a speech broad-cast by the radio seeking to justify the propriety of a control order issued by the Government, the validity of which was pending consideration before the High Court. In course of his speech the Chief Minister made several comments on controversial matters which were pending adjudication before the Court. It is further to be noted that his speech did not contain a mere statement that such an order was issued by his Government but actually defended and supported the control order and also declared his views regarding the effect of an earlier order of the High Court. This aspect of the matter has been summoned up in paragraph 9 of the Supreme Court decision. In the case in hand, as shown above, the position is quite different. (ii) A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramparichhan Pandey V/. S. M. Sharma and another, AIR 1961 Pat 271 . We again find that the facts of that case were wholly different. In the case in hand, as shown above, the position is quite different. (ii) A Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramparichhan Pandey V/. S. M. Sharma and another, AIR 1961 Pat 271 . We again find that the facts of that case were wholly different. Moreover, in that decision their Lordships made it clear that decision was on the facts and in the circumstances of that case, a further note of caution, was 6pelled out in the following terms : "It would not be correct, in my opinion to lay down a general proposition that the publication in extenso of the pleadings, of the statements made in a petition or other petitions or portions thereof filed before a court would be per se contempt of Court, as circumstances may vary in each case, it is for the Court to decide in each case as to whether such publications amount to contempt. In the present case the allegations were so derogatory to the position of Ramparichhan Pandey that the publications of the same in extenso do constitute contempt and they have a tendency to prejudice the public mind against him." (iii) A single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Stale of Bihar V/s. Indradeep Singh, 1966 BLJR 502, We find that case also was decided on its own facts which were quite different from the facts of the case in hand. 12. We, thus, find that none of the cases relied upon by Mr. Basudeo Prasad advances his contentions. 13. For the reasons aforesaid we see no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.