Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 905 (PAT)

Deo Krishna Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-27

NAVIN SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 27.7.1990. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on 16.6.1992. The order of dismissal then came to be passed on 2.6.1997. 2. The petitioner questioned the order of his dismissal in C.W.J.C. No. 6111 of 1999. The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit supporting the order of dismissal. After hearing the parties this Court by its judgment and order dated 8.10.2004 held that the report of the Enquiry Officer was without jurisdiction and perverse. The entire proceedings were conducted contrary to law. The order of punishment was at variance to the show cause issued for the proposed punishment. It was also based on materials extraneous to the memo of charges. The order of dismissal dated 2.6.1997 was thus held to be vitiated in law and was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt and/or communication of a copy of the order. 3. The petitioner served a copy of the order of the writ court in the office of opposite party on 3.11.2004. The order of this Court was still not complied with. The petitioner then instituted the present contempt application on 9.3.2005 before this Court alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 8.10.2004. 4. The respondents then preferred L.P.A. No. 1251 of 2005. The order dated 9.11.2005 of the L.P.A. Bench reflects that the direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits was never assailed. The relief sought in appeal was confined to the issue of holding a fresh enquiry. The appellate Court clarified liberty for the purpose. This Court in the contempt matter on 5.1.2006 noticed that the order dated 8.10.2004 of reinstatement with consequential benefits had thus attained finality. The opposite parties filed a show cause that the order of the writ court had been complied with and necessary orders for reinstatement had been issued on 15.3.2005. This Court required the respondents to file an additional show cause why the order of this Court remained uncomplied with regard to the grant of consequential benefits, whereafter it would consider the matter appropriately. 5. On 1.3.2006 the opposite party No. 5 filed an additional show cause that a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2006 had been preferred by them before the Appellate Court against the order dated 5.1.2006. 5. On 1.3.2006 the opposite party No. 5 filed an additional show cause that a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2006 had been preferred by them before the Appellate Court against the order dated 5.1.2006. The present proceedings must, therefore, await the result of such application preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. This Court noticed in the order that it was yet to draw contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. 6. The opposite party No. 1, the Sec-retary-cum-Commissioner, filed a fresh show cause on 5.3.2006. It contended that the order of the writ court for reinstatement stood merged in the order of the L.P.A. Bench dated 9.11.2005 granting liberty to hold fresh proceedings and, therefore, the contempt application was not maintainable. This was notwithstanding the fact that the Executive Engineer concerned, by his communication dated 9.7.2005 had already sought necessary funds for payment of the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 7. On 9.3.2006 this Court, in the circumstances, desired to hear the Advocate General on behalf of the opposite parties who were till then represented by a counsel of their independent choice. On 20.3.2006 the Advocate General appeared and informed the Court that the matter shall be properly looked into. The opposite parties then issued an order on 31.3.2006 granting consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date of dismissal i.e. 2.6.1997 to the date of reinstatement i.e. 16.3.2005. The payment of consequential benefits for the period of suspension still remained uncomplied. 8. The order of reinstatement with consequential benefits by the writ court was accepted by the opposite parties. The petitioner was not placed under suspension, but continued to discharge duties. Fresh departmental proceedings, however, followed. The Enquiry Officer, by his order dated 24.6.2006 exonerated the petitioner. A fresh show cause was filed that by order dated 9.8.2006 the petitioner had been paid his dues for the period of suspension till the date of dismissal after deducting the subsistence allowance paid to him and that the order of the writ Court now stood fully complied. 9. The facts of the present case reveal a very sorry state of affairs which cannot be described as solitary and is recurrent in contempt matters before this Court. The order of reinstatement with consequential benefits was complied with by simple reinstatement belatedly. 9. The facts of the present case reveal a very sorry state of affairs which cannot be described as solitary and is recurrent in contempt matters before this Court. The order of reinstatement with consequential benefits was complied with by simple reinstatement belatedly. The opposite parties before the L.P.A. Bench did not question the order of reinstatement with consequential benefits. The order was accepted. Nonetheless, this Court had to steadfastly pursue the opposite parties why apparently in their wisdom were obstinate in their reluctance to implement the order of the writ court even while paying lip service in their repeated show cause that they had the highest regard for this Court and its orders. The Court is satisfied that the opposite parties have flouted the order of this Court. 10. No doubt, today, after serious persuation by this Court over a period of more than one year the opposite parties have reluctantly complied with the Courts order. The question of initiating proceedings in contempt against them, therefore, does not arise. There is, however, another disturbing feature of the manner in which the opposite parties have wasted the time of the court and indulged in what may be termed as frivolous litigation at the tax payers expense. This court cannot help but take notice of the same. 11. This Court on 5.1.2006 only directed the opposite parties to file their show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them whereafter it would consider the matter appropriately. There was no order passed in any contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. The Supreme Court as far back as in Purushotam Dass Goel V/s. Justice B.S. Dhillon, AIR 1978 SC 1014 held that an order merely initiating the proceeding without anything further does not decide anything against the alleged contemner and cannot be appealed against. This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. Mario Cabral E Sa., AIR 1982 SC 691 The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2006 was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the course of justice in a frivolous manner. There was no occasion to prefer the appeal, since no orders had been passed in contempt proceedings or even having any nature of a final order. 12. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. There was no occasion to prefer the appeal, since no orders had been passed in contempt proceedings or even having any nature of a final order. 12. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal V/s. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 498 while declining to initiate contempt proceedings, nonetheless considered it proper to impose heavy costs upon the opposite parties alongwith certain directions for compliance. The aspect of accountability and recovery of costs personally from negligent officers was emphasised by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. V/s. Food Corporation of India, 2004 13 SCC 53 The question of frivolous and vexatious litigations by officers of the State came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. V/s. Vijay Dutt & Ors., 2005 12 SCC 174 when while imposing costs on the State, liberty was granted to recover the same from erring officers. 13. This Court has already noticed that it could have initiated contempt proceedings against the opposite parties but the question of doing the same now, in the opinion of this Court, does not arise as it will not only be not proper but will also result in multiplicity of proceedings. This Court is, however, satisfied that the conduct of the opposite parties was clearly wanting. This Court takes serious notice of the same and considers it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- upon the opposite parties which shall be paid by the State of Bihar to the Bihar State Legal Aid Society within a period of three weeks from today and receipt filed within the same period before this Court. 14. The costs deposited by the State in the present case shall be recoverable by it from the erring officials. The State shall be at liberty to hold an enquiry, fix responsibility, and recover the costs, including all costs incurred in frivolously contesting the present proceedings, from the salary of the concerned officials. The State shall also consider proceeding against them departmentally. 15. Let an affidavit of compliance be filed by the State affirmed by the Chief Secretary within a period of twelve weeks when the matter shall be placed before the Court.