Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 415 (PAT)

Aprajita Srivastava v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-12

R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. The respondent officer is present in Court. 2. This Court earlier recorded its displeasure about the conduct of the respondent officer and clearly directed that the mode of payment is not to make deposit in the provident fund account but the mode of payment should be that in how many instalments and in what particular manner the amount would be paid in cash. The copy of this order was received by the officer on 5th April, 2004. He submits that he sought certain instructions from different corners and thereafter filed the affidavit dated 7th April, 2004. 3. Surprisingly, in the affidavit dated 7th April, 2004 the said officer has reiterated his stand and has submitted that the amount is to be deposited in the provident fund account and the earlier orders passed by the Court be recalled. 4. Finding that the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. and the direction issued in these very proceedings were not complied with and the concerned officer who were bent upon committing contempt of this Court, this Court heard the matter and recorded its findings on 8th April, 2004 that a submission was made in the earlier affidavit that proper action has already been taken. The Court also held him guilty of contempt and listed the case today for hearing on question of sentence. Today Sri Alamdar Hussain, learned counsel for the contemnor comes with a protective umbrella to protect the said officer. He submits that proper instruction could not be imparted to the officer, therefore, proper steps could not be taken. When Mr. Alamdar Hussain was asked that when the copy of the order was received on 5th April, 2004 and he learnt about the observation made by this Court then why did he not ask the alleged contemnor to comply with the order instead of filing an application explaining the conduct, Mr. Alamdar Hussain submits that the order dated 1.4.2004 was passed in this absence, therefore, he did not know about the contents of the said order. According to him, one of his junior counsel appeared in the matter. This Court is least concerned with the appearance of the junior counsel. The Government has a privity of contract with the State Counsel and the said State Counsel is obliged to attend those important matters where the life and career of the Government Officer are at stake. According to him, one of his junior counsel appeared in the matter. This Court is least concerned with the appearance of the junior counsel. The Government has a privity of contract with the State Counsel and the said State Counsel is obliged to attend those important matters where the life and career of the Government Officer are at stake. The cases of importance cannot be left loose in the hands of the junior counsel who do not understand the importance of such matter and simply pray for adjournment or are absolutely incompetent in assisting the Court. In any case, it was the duty of the junior colleague of Mr. Hussain to apprise him about the orders. 5. Assuming for a minute that the copy of the order dated 1.4.2004 was received by Mr. Hussain on 5th April, 2004 then it was his duty to go through the same and while sending the copy of the said order to the concerned Officer also inform him that in accordance with the direction of this Court what action should be taken. Instead of doing that Mr. Hussain does not even prevent the officer from filing the affidavit dated 7.4.2004 which in fact is nothing but a further gross contempt of the earlier orders and the order dated 1.4.2004. I am at a loss to understand that why the said officer after receiving the order dated 1.4.2004 could not go through it and understand it. I will again repeat that this Court observed on 1.4.2004 that phrase mode of payment does not mean making payment in the provident fund account but meant that in what manner the amount would be paid in cash. When this Court explained the earlier order then it was the duty of the party to observe the order as explained by this Court. To come out with an application seeking modification adds insult, to the injury. If the respondents were ready and justified in relying upon the earlier stand that the amount will have to be deposited in provident fund account then they could not say that the amount would be paid in cash. If they are so strong in challenging the authority of the High Court on earlier occasion then they should stand to their stand and should be ready to face the consequence. If they are so strong in challenging the authority of the High Court on earlier occasion then they should stand to their stand and should be ready to face the consequence. I fail to understand that why these officers are not ready and willing to pass orders as required by the High Court. Present is not a case where the Judge makes certain oral observations and requires the Government to pass orders in accordance with the oral observation. Present is a matter where the contempt proceedings are going oh and this Court issued a direction that the order be appreciated in right manner and despite that the officer does not observe the orders. 6. Mr. Girish Shankar, Secretary, Higher Education with his folded hand submitted his apology and says that as the order has now been complied with, the apology may be accepted. He assures that in future the orders of the High Court would be complied with in their true spirit and right in time. 7. Taking a lenient view of the matter I accept the apology, but however direct him to pay a sum of Rs. 250.00 as cost to each of the petitioner. If the amount of cost is not paid to the petitioner within 15 days from today then that would be taken to be a serious lapse on his part. The, respondent, however, informs this Court that allotment has already been sent to the principal and if the petitioners submit their pay bills then the amount would be paid to them without any further delay. The principal of Government Girls College, Gulzarbagh, Patna is hereby directed that if the petitioners submit their pay bills then he must look into the matter immediately and see that the said pay bills are forwarded to Treasury within 48 hours next. The Treasury Officer at Patna is hereby directed that within 24 hours of the receipt of the pay bills sent by the principal if the same are not encashed by him then he would be exposing himself to a serious risk. 8. Let this matter be put up on 23rd April, 2004 for reporting compliance. A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the State within two days if an application for urgent supply of copy is made.