Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1294 (PAT)

Ram Krit Singh v. State of Bihar

2003-12-15

body2003
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. K.A.H. Subramanium, Chief Secretary, Mr. U.K. Nanda, Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Shri Sriram Pandey, Joint Secretary, Science and Technology Department and Mr. Yogendra Prasad Rai, Deputy Secretary, Science and Technology Department are in attendance. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 8823 of 1995 decided on 22nd June, 1999, in paragraph 11 this Court issued certain directions. It is always expected of this Government that rising to the occasion and having a battery of Lawyers and different educated and learned Secretaries, it would understand the import and effect of the order passed by this Court, observe the same in its true spirit and would not violate the same causing an occasion or creating a situation wherein the officers like present in this Court including the Chief Secretary are required to face contempt. 3. It is most unfortunate that a Government like respondent is not ready and willing to accept the orders passed by this Court. 4. This Court had ordered that the Government must lay down the norms/guidelines and thereafter prepare a panel of officers in accordance with paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 25.10.1980 and thereafter select suitable persons from the said panel to work on deputation against the ex cadre post of Project Director/Director in the Department of Science and Technology. This Court observed that the said respondents No.4 and 5 have been appointed against the aforesaid post only till further orders, the Government stands directed to lay down the guidelines/norms and complete the process of selection within a period of four months from the date of judgment. This Court also directed that after selections are made on the basis of the directions contained in the said order the persons so selected shall be deputed to work against the aforesaid post and respondents no. 4 and 5 if not selected for deputation, shall revert back to their parent cadre. Obvious it was and regular for this Government as a matter of principle and policy, this Government observed the orders of this Court in its complete breach. They showed their absolute defiance and were ready to come in confrontation with the High Court. 5. 4 and 5 if not selected for deputation, shall revert back to their parent cadre. Obvious it was and regular for this Government as a matter of principle and policy, this Government observed the orders of this Court in its complete breach. They showed their absolute defiance and were ready to come in confrontation with the High Court. 5. I fail to understand that if the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary are the three limbs of this Constitution and Democracy then who gave the authority to the Legislative and Executive to treat the Judiciary as a step brother. The Framers of the Constitution always thought that the wrongs committed by the State Government and the Legislative may be challenged before the Judiciary and the Judiciary being on the highest pedestal its orders would always be obeyed and observed by the Executive. The Framers of the Constitution never thought that in the system of democracy/democratic Government the authority would centralize in hands of few rather in hands of chosen few and they would start playing with the authority of the Government or would rather fiddle with the authority of the Court. 6. In the present matter despite directions of this Court nothing was done within four months. After the contempt matter was filed the file started moving with the snail's speed from one Secretary to another Secretary, every Babu/Clerk/Secretary and all such persons, were ready to put a spoke in the running wheel. 7. I have gone through the original file and I am surprised to see the manner in which the orders of the High Court were sought to be complied with. A Babu started recording that Jharkhand High Court had also made certain observations in the particular matter, therefore, that order should also be seen. The file again started moving from one end to another. Ultimately somebody understood the logic and recorded that the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand has no relevance in the matter. 8. The guidelines were framed on 1.9.2000, this was a great delay and in fact the contempt was already committed. 9. The present matter was filed on 1.11.99. The direction of the High Court issued in the original C.W.J.C. could not act as eye opener, but, however, the filing of the contempt started tickling a little on the hard skin of the State Government. 9. The present matter was filed on 1.11.99. The direction of the High Court issued in the original C.W.J.C. could not act as eye opener, but, however, the filing of the contempt started tickling a little on the hard skin of the State Government. After the guidelines were framed the file, as usual, started moving from one officer to another. Originally three names were approved and out of the three one was to be appointed full fledged as the Director. It appears from the original file that somebody at some level thought that the three names proposed preferred or referred were 'lot to suit their game therefore three other names were called. Thereafter the elimination process started so that the man of their choice could be picked. Unfortunately the man of the choice/ liking could not figure among those six, the matter was kicked like football from one corner to another. Despite framing the norms and the guidelines the State Government through its competent (?) Officers again entered into the game of writing the note-sheet/proceedings. All of a sudden name of Mr. Dhruv Prasad started appearing in the scene. Firstly, there were only three names but in the proceedings dated 4.7.2003 recorded by Mr. U.K. Nanda, Secretary, Science and Technology, name of Dr. Dhruv Prasad started floating. He proposed that Dr. Ram Narain Singh, Dr. Chittaranjan Prasad and Dr. Dhruv Prasad from the College cadre while Dr. Ram Singhashan Singh from the Polytechnic cadre would be fit for consideration. Ultimately observing that Dr. Ram Narain Singh though senior would not be fit to occupy the office of the Director be removed and, Dr. Chittaranjan Prasad, Dr. Dhruv Prasad and Dr. Ram Singhashan Singh only be considered. It is old saying that to avoid competition elimination is the best. Out of six only three remained. Their cases were considered by one Mr. Chandrika Rai, Minister Science and Technology. He considered the cases of these three persons. He observed that Dr. Chittaranjan Prasad had already submitted his application that he be relieved from the office of the Principal as he was busy rather would be kept busy to attend his wife. Case of Mr. Dhruv Prasad was projected to the hilt and case of Dr. Ram Singhashan Singh was rejected on the ground that he belonged to the Polytechnic cadre and his case would be considered in rotation. Low and behold Dr. Case of Mr. Dhruv Prasad was projected to the hilt and case of Dr. Ram Singhashan Singh was rejected on the ground that he belonged to the Polytechnic cadre and his case would be considered in rotation. Low and behold Dr. Dhruv Prasad, who was very below in the seniority started swimming on the top. Thereafter one Mr. Sriram Pandey, Joint Secretary recorded his note and said that as the Minister has observed that the charge be given to Dr. Dhruv Prasad, the matter be placed before the Chief Minister through the agency of the Chief Secretary. 10. The matter again came to Mr. U.K. Nanda. Mr. U.K. Nanda prepared a note for the Chief Secretary, the Chief Secretary made certain queries on 16.9.2003. The matter again came to some officer in the Secretariat and he observed that in accordance with the directions of the Secretary the things have been clarified. Some Officer again recorded on 26.9.2003 that the note made by the concerned officer was not in accordance with the queries made by the Chief Secretary. Some Officer wrote to the Deputy Secretary that in accordance with the requirement the position has been clarified. The matter came to one Yogendra Prasad Rai, he recorded that on 26.11.1999 the Committee meeting was held for appointment of the Director and in response to the query made by the Chief Secretary he be informed that the Departmental Establishment Committee does the work of selection. Thereafter Mr. Sriram Pandey again recorded that appointment of the Director does not fail within the jurisdiction of the Departmental Establishment Committee. On 19.10.2003 the Secretary Mr. Nanda referred the matter to the Chief Secretary with a request that approval of the Chief Minister be sought. 11. At this stage when the Court was dictating the order the Court was unable to read the notings made by the Chief Secretary, therefore the Court asked the Chief Secretary himself to read the said noting. On behalf of the Chief Secretary, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, in presence of hundred of Lawyers said that as the Chief Secretary had put certain medicine in his eyes he is unable to read the said noting. The Court asked Mr. Singh that within what the time the Chief Secretary would be able to read the said file. On behalf of the Chief Secretary, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, in presence of hundred of Lawyers said that as the Chief Secretary had put certain medicine in his eyes he is unable to read the said noting. The Court asked Mr. Singh that within what the time the Chief Secretary would be able to read the said file. At this juncture the Chief Secretary who was sitting on the front chairs got up and started shouting in the open Court and said that the file can not be thrown on his face. He also said that he can not be treated like an ordinary roadside man, he added that he is the Chief Secretary of the State. When this Court asked him that being the Chief Secretary he is required to behave in the Court, he continued saying that the Court may draw proceedings against him and he is ready and willing to go to Jail. This Court warned him that he was perilously bordering contempt in saying those words and exhibiting such conduct, the Chief Secretary started moving out of the Court still saying that he has made his statement and he does not bother even if proceedings are started against him and he is sent to Jail. This Court asked Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, counsel for the Chief Secretary to extend some advise to him. On this Mr. Singh tendered an apology on behalf of the Chief Secretary but to the shock and surprise of the Court and all present in the Court, the Chief Secretary was absolutely adamant, arrogant and undisturbed. He repeated in the open Court that the Court may draw contempt proceedings against him and may send him to jail as he was ready and willing to go to jail. When this Court told him that he is answerable to the Court then in a very rough and insulting tone he again said that he has told that what was required of him and the Court is free to take any action against him. 12. Considering this act of the Chief Secretary challenging the authority of this Court, I am sure and certain that he must be issued a notice immediately, I orally informed him of the charges that his behaviour in the Court was bad and was proceeding towards worse. 12. Considering this act of the Chief Secretary challenging the authority of this Court, I am sure and certain that he must be issued a notice immediately, I orally informed him of the charges that his behaviour in the Court was bad and was proceeding towards worse. This Court also said that if he was ready and willing to sacrifice his own authority and was saying that he was ready and willing to go to jail then this Court may certainly accept his words and would not allow him to leave the Court now. Despite this he did not show any remorse nor said anything to this Court. He was absolutely undisturbed and was exhibiting the conduct that come that may, whatever he had said was right and justified. Left with no option I hereby direct that he be taken into custody and be lodged in the Jail. He be kept in Beur Jail and be produced in the Court tomorrow sharp at 2.15 P.M. 13. He will be required to give a positive reply either personally or through his counsel as to why he be not awarded proper jail sentence for this act of his, the words spoken in the open Court and exhibiting such a conduct in the public view and expressing obsession in the open Court and insulting the authority of the Presiding Judge. 14. Nobody is able to read what the Chief Secretary had written. Mr. U.K. Nanda tried to decode what is written by the Chief Secretary, according to rim the Chief Secretary submitted rather ordered, 'let a copy of the resolution be kept in the file'. Thereafter on 22.10.2003 Mr. Nanda again recorded that 'quick compliance with a note flagged please'. The matter again came to Mr. Sriram Pandey. Mr. Sriram Pandey recorded 'refer the matter to the Secretary'. Thereafter the matter again came to Sri U.K. Nanda. Mr. U.K. Nanda recorded that he was in attendance in the High Court, when the matter was taken up on 23.10.2003. He also informed the Chief Secretary that the proceedings of the High Court be seen at page No. 164-163. He also observed that on 7.11.2003 the Departmental Secretary and the Chief Secretary were required to remain in attendance. The Chief Secretary recorded that Mr. Dhruv Prasad's case can be approved as in-charge Director. 15. He also informed the Chief Secretary that the proceedings of the High Court be seen at page No. 164-163. He also observed that on 7.11.2003 the Departmental Secretary and the Chief Secretary were required to remain in attendance. The Chief Secretary recorded that Mr. Dhruv Prasad's case can be approved as in-charge Director. 15. I am at a loss to understand that if the High Court had issued mandatory positive directions that after framing the guidelines a panel be prepared and from amongst the panel the best man be selected then how could the Departmental Secretary or the Chief Secretary or the Minister could make the proposal that in-charge Director be appointed. The matter was thereafter placed before the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister accepted the proposal but also directed that a Director be appointed on regular basis without any loss of time. After the notings made by the Chief Secretary the file came to Sri U.K. Nanda, Mr. U.K. Nanda referred the matter to the Joint Secretary, the Joint Secretary recorded that : 16. The matter then came to Mr. U.K. Nanda, he approved the note and thereafter the notification was issued. 17. When this Court asked Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the State that how could a in-charge Director' be appointed, Mr. Singh referring to the note of the Chief Minister said that the Chief Minister had approved paragraph 3 of the proposal made by the Chief Secretary that in-charge Director can be appointed and at the same time the Chief Minister also observed that the regular appointment should be made without any loss of time. 18. I had asked the Chief Secretary as to why he did not bring the real facts to the notice of the Chief Minister when this Court was asking for appointment of the Director full fledgedly and the proposals were mooted for appointment of an in-charge Director. The Chief Secretary simply said that he approved the proposal made by the Department. I fail to understand this reply of the Chief Secretary and his action. The Chief Secretary simply said that he approved the proposal made by the Department. I fail to understand this reply of the Chief Secretary and his action. If the High Court directed that after making the guidelines and settling the norms a panel be prepared and from amongst the panel a person be appointed as Director then despite framing of the guidelines/settling the norms in 2000 itself why the Government could not appoint the Director full fledgedly and why the proposal was made to appoint an in-charge Director is still a mystery and remains unexplained. 19. That is not the end of the matter. The matter thereafter was taken up in this Court. On 7.11.2003 when the matter was again taken up this Court directed that let the concerned Secretary file his further affidavit along with necessary documents to show that a panel was prepared and one man has been selected as in-charge Director. He was also required to inform this Court that contrary to the policy why in-charge Director only has been appointed until further orders while in the policy the tenure of such Director is to be three years. The matter came up before this Court on 12.11.2003. The petitioner's counsel prayed for time to file reply to the counters. On 24.11.2003 at the request of the parties the matter was adjourned for 4.12.2003. On 4.12.2003 this Court recorded the statement of one of the intervenors that said Dhruv Prasad in fact was not eligible to be appointed as Director. This Court also observed that appointment of Mr. Dhruv Prasad on 15.11.2003 during pendency of this proceeding added insult to injuries. This Court also observed that the contempt was already committed and now grave contempt was repeated. This Court required the Department to produce the original file leading to appointment of Mr. Dhruv Prasad. 20. Today the file has been produced before me and I have gone through the same. On 9.12.2003 some Law Clerk recorded that the proceedings recorded by this Court be looked into and thereafter- action be taken. Thereafter the Sectional Officer referred the matter to the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Rai, who recorded that the High Court was sore in relation to the appointment of Mr. Dhruv Prasad as in-charge Director. On 9.12.2003 some Law Clerk recorded that the proceedings recorded by this Court be looked into and thereafter- action be taken. Thereafter the Sectional Officer referred the matter to the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Rai, who recorded that the High Court was sore in relation to the appointment of Mr. Dhruv Prasad as in-charge Director. He also wrote that when the matter has already been referred to the Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment of the regular Director then the orders passed by the High Court to a great extent stands complied. He also recorded that an additional affidavit be filed in the High Court and the regular appointment be made from amongst the persons who are proposed. It appears that thereafter the matter again came to Mr. U.K. Nanda, who on 10.12.2003 recorded that till regular appointment the earlier policy be adopted and the Secretary be asked to work as the Director. One Mr. Qaiser, the State Minister recorded his note that on the proposal made by the Departmental Secretary orders be obtained from the Chief Minister. Thereafter one Mr. Chandrika Rai again recorded that order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2675 of 2001 by the High Court of Jharkhand be looked into and the other orders be also seen. Thereafter the matter came to the Joint Secretary. The Joint Secretary recorded that opinion of the Law Department be taken or the Government Advocate be asked to seek an adjournment or looking to the urgency of the matter the orders from the Chief Minister be obtained. The Secretary of the Department thereafter recorded that the opinion of the Deputy Secretary be also taken. A note was again prepared by one Yogendra Prasad Rai that the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand is not binding upon the Government of Bihar because the directions were issued against the said Government and the Government of Bihar was simply joined as a party in the proceedings before the High Court of Jharkhand. He also recorded that if any delay is occasioned in obtaining the opinion of the Law Department then the orders may be obtained from the Chief Minister through the agency of the Chief Secretary. On 13.12.2003 the Joint Secretary recorded that the file may be placed before the Court, as it is. 21. When this Court asked the Secretary as to why Mr. On 13.12.2003 the Joint Secretary recorded that the file may be placed before the Court, as it is. 21. When this Court asked the Secretary as to why Mr. Dhurv Prasad, despite observations of this Court and as his appointment was contrary to the earlier directions of this Court was not removed and what steps were taken by him, Mr. Nanda said that on 9.12.2003 Mr. Yogendra Prasad Rai had recorded in the proceedings that Mr. Dhruv Prasad be removed from his office and necessary directions be obtained to cancel the notification dated 5.11.2003 and he had referred this matter to the concerned State Minister with his observation that the note-sheet be gone through. 22. Even today Mr. Dhruv Prasad continues. His appointment is in the teeth of the directions issued by this Court. It would, however, be for the State Government to continue him or not to continue him but let me remind the State Government and its Officers and all who are involved in his appointment process that his appointment was a contempt and his continuance on the post is a continuous contempt of the lawful authority of this Court. The State Government is not run under the whims, caprice or arbitrariness of the few. The Government is run by the logic and the reason. A bad driver may damage the vehicle though the vehicle in itself is in a good condition. It appears that in this State the Government is not ready and willing to take proper steps in the matter. The Government is not ready and willing ever to read and understand what the Judicial System requires it to do. One Officer would record some proceeding and if the other officer records something contrary to it then tussle starts and ultimately the orders of the High Court are disobeyed. It is unfortunate that under the shelter of the Chief Minister such orders were obtained. One Officer would record some proceeding and if the other officer records something contrary to it then tussle starts and ultimately the orders of the High Court are disobeyed. It is unfortunate that under the shelter of the Chief Minister such orders were obtained. At one stage I was ready and willing to issue notices to the concerned Minister and the Chief Minister to appear and show cause as to why they should not be held guilty under the contempt proceedings, but after going through the complete records I am of the considered opinion that the Chief Minister was not informed that the High Court was asking the State Government to appoint a man on the regular basis rather from the understanding of the Chief Minister it would appear that the Chief Minister was requiring the Department to appoint the person to the office of the Director on regular basis. 23. The manner in which the Secretaries including the Chief Secretary are behaving in this Court would only project one thing that the Administrative system/Executive system has come down to a point that 'come what may we are incorrigible, would not improve even if the High Court informs that they are committing contempt of the lawful authority of the Court then too nobody can do anything against us'. I am really shocked and shocked to the core that a man of the Chief Secretary's level behaves in such a nasty manner in the open Court. It was expected of him that he would observe the decorum of the Court properly and instead of raising his voice or creating an ugly scene in the Court would say that he would look into the matter and see that the orders of the High Court are properly appreciated and observed. It appears that all the Secretaries of the Government including the Chief Secretary think that all who are involved in this matter are extra. protected under the umbrella of the State Government or their political bosses, but let me remind them that none is above law and everybody is answerable to the Court. 24. At this stage Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh submitted that in accordance with the provisions of law the Chief Secretary be released on bail. protected under the umbrella of the State Government or their political bosses, but let me remind them that none is above law and everybody is answerable to the Court. 24. At this stage Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh submitted that in accordance with the provisions of law the Chief Secretary be released on bail. I was taken aback that in a case like present where the Chief Secretary showed his eagerness to go to jail and was not ready and willing to tender a single word of apology was asking for bail. I asked Mr. Subramanium personally that at one side he was ready and willing to go to jail and on the other side a request for bail was made on his behalf then what would be correct, honest and the proper stand, the Chief Secretary said that he wants bail. Let the Guard who had taken him in custody take him to the Registrar General. He may be released on bail on his submitting a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand). He shall appear tomorrow in the Court at 2.15 P.M. without fail. Let he be also informed that if he repeats this behaviour of his in the Court what he has shown today the bail granted to him may be cancelled. 25. At this stage Shri Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Advocate submits that on behalf of Mr. Dhruv Prasad he has made an application for intervention, the application would be taken up for consideration tomorrow. 26. Put up tomorrow for further consideration.