Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 436 (MP)

Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. Satya Prakash

2012-04-24

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
ORDER 1. Contempt Petition bearing No. 394/10 has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/07 (S), Contempt Petition bearing No. 389/10 has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1775/08 (S) and Contempt Petition bearing No. 390/10 has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1896/08 (S). As the applicants in all the three cases are same and non-applicants are also same and in the three different cases of termination of applicant, orders were quashed and the compliance has to be made by the non-applicants of the three orders of this Court and the facts are also similar in all the three cases, therefore, it is being decided by a common order. For the convenience, the facts are being referred from Contempt Petition No. 394/10. 2. This petition under sections 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/2007 (s) whereby this Court has issued following directions :- “Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30th December, 2005 (Annexure P/1) passed by the disciplinary authority is bad in law and the impugned order dated 07th September, 2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the appellate authority is also bad in law and therefore, the orders are liable to be and are hereby quashed. The petitioner who is present in Court has categorically stated before this Court that he is not claiming for back wages in the matter and, therefore, keeping in view the submission made by the petitioner, the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith on the post of Manager without back wages. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit of the period during which he was unauthorisedly absent for counting the period for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, in accordance with law.” 3. The applicant has communicated the aforesaid order on 6.4.2010, 24.6.2010 and 21.7.2010, but even on communication it was not complied with, however, he has filed the present contempt petition on 3.9.2010. Other two contempt petitions have also been filed on the same date showing non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by this Court with indentical words and direction. The applicant has communicated the aforesaid order on 6.4.2010, 24.6.2010 and 21.7.2010, but even on communication it was not complied with, however, he has filed the present contempt petition on 3.9.2010. Other two contempt petitions have also been filed on the same date showing non-compliance of the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by this Court with indentical words and direction. On issuance of show cause notice why the contempt proceedings be not initiated non-applicants have tendered appearence on 20.10.2010 but the direction of forthwith reinstatement was not complied with and sought time on 8.12.2011, 18.2.2011, 16.12.2011, 30.01.2012, 21.2.2012, 15.3.2012, however it is listed today for further orders. 4. In the present case non-applicants have filed the return stating the fact that the writ appeal was pending, which was decided on 1.12.2011 affirming the order of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition, in the said circumstances order could not be complied with till then. On dismissal of writ appeal the compliance report has been submitted on 23.4.2012 attaching the order dated 16th March, 2012 reinstating and posting the applicant at Balaghat without back wages. In the compliance report in paragraph-1 it is said that the non-applicants are tendering an unconditional apology before this Court, if it appears that any contempt is made out arising out of order dated 6.4.2010. In view of the foregoing it is urged that the proceeding so initiated for contempt may be dropped. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of writ Petition No. 49/04 (S), Writ Petition No. 5745/07 (S), Writ Petition No. 1775/08 (S) and Writ Petition No. 1896/08 (S), Writ Appeal No. 490/10, Writ Appeal No. 456/10 and Writ Appeal No. 457/10, it is apparent that applicant is a person, who was first terminated vide order dated 22.12.2003 against which a writ petition on 49/2004 was filed wherein as per the order dated 12.4.2007 the order of termination was quashed with the liberty to non-applicants to hold a regular departmental enquiry. In furtherance to the said order applicant was not reinstated, however, he has filed a contempt petition on 354/207, which is also listed today, but it has been disposed of due to passing the subsequent orders of termination which were challegned and quashed by the order dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 5745/07 (S), Writ Petition No. 1775/08 (S) and Writ Petition No. 1896/08 (S). Alleging non-compliance of the said order passed in writ petitions, present Contempt Petition and two other Contempt Petition No. 389/10 and 390/10 have been filed which are heard analogously. 6. After perusal of record, it can safely be gathered that the first order of termination dated 22.12.2003 was quashed as per the order dated 12.4.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 49/09 wherein the liberty was granted to hold departmental enquiry. The non-applicants without reinstating the applicant conducted a departmental enquiry and terminated the services of the applicant by passing subsequent three orders. All these three orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 5745/07 (S), Writ Petition No. 1775/08 (S) and Writ Petition No. 1896/08 (S). In all the writ petitions, the orders of termination have been quashed on 6.4.2010 directing forthwith reinstatement and as per statement of applicant back wages were denied. In furtherance to the direction of this Court dated 6.4.2010, the applicant was reinstated vide order dated 16.3.2012 produced on 23.4.2012 after more than 23 months. However, such compliance is acceptable within the purview of “forthwith reinstatement” and unconditional apology of non-applicants can be accepted in the facts of this case. 7. In the said context, first of all meaning of word “forthwith reinstatement” is required to be seen. As per the Chamber 21st Century Dictionary Revised Edition 2007 meaning of words forthwith is as under : forwith-adverb immediately, at once. As per Oxford Dictionary, 8th Edition, meaning of word “forthwith is as under: forthwith-adv. immediately, without delay. As per Black’s Law Dictionary Ninth Edition meaning of word “forthwith is as under: forthwith-adv. 1. Immediately without delay, 2. Directly ; promptly; within a reasonable time under the circumstances. As per Legal Glossary 1988 Government of India, Law and Legislation Affairs Department, meaning of word “forthwith is as under: forthwith : at once. In view of the foregoing, it is appearent that as per the direction of this Court on communication of the order, applicant is required to be reinstated forthwith meaning thereby on communication of the order or on its production before the authorities at once or immediately, applicant should be reinstated without delay. If the reinstatement has not been made then the circumstances ought to be explained wherein he could not be reinstated. In the aforesaid context, the meaning of the word fortnightly referred in Legal Glossary can also be seen which indicates period of two weeks. If the reinstatement has not been made then the circumstances ought to be explained wherein he could not be reinstated. In the aforesaid context, the meaning of the word fortnightly referred in Legal Glossary can also be seen which indicates period of two weeks. In the said context importance of the word forthwith can be gathered and any of the circumstances would not convert the meaning of forthwith to fortnight. In the said context, in the opinion of this Court in a case of forthwith reinstatement, the authorities are bound to reinstate the applicant immediately or at once if the stay was not granted in writ appeal or by the higher Court but prior to fortnight. 8. In the present case, the order of this Court dated 6.4.2010 was communicated on the same day i.e. 6.4.2010, thereafter on 24.6.2010 and 21.7.2010. Such communication has not been denied. On issuance of notice to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated, non-applicants have tendered their appearance on 20.10.2010 and requested for time to file reply on 8.12.2011 and prior to said date, writ appeals filed by the State were dismissed on 1.12.2011. Again on 16.12.2011, further time was prayed for to submit compliance report. On 30.1.2012, 21.2.2012 and on 15.3.2012, time was prayed to submit the compliance report. On perusal, said compliance report has been filed on 23.4.2012 attaching the order dated 16.3.2012 reinstating and posting the applicant at Balaghat as Manager without back wages. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the applicant was reinstated after more than 23 months from the date of passing of the order and its communication and the compliance report has been submitted after two years. It can safely be observed here that in the writ appeals filed by the State Government before the Writ Appellate Court, stay was not granted and Writ Appeals were dismissed on 1.12.2011 and the order of reinstatement has been passed after three and half months thereafter. While tendering the unconditional apology, it has not been explained why such delay has been caused, explaining the circumstances and showing the bona fide. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, direction of forthwith reinstatement has not been complied with in the spirit of the order passed by this Court and the satisfactory explanation of delay showing bona fide to accept unconditional apology has not been furnished. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, direction of forthwith reinstatement has not been complied with in the spirit of the order passed by this Court and the satisfactory explanation of delay showing bona fide to accept unconditional apology has not been furnished. Accordingly, non-applicants are guilty for non-compliance of the direction of this Court and said unconditional apology is not acceptable in view of the foregoing discussions. 9. It is also seen from the record that during pendency of contempt petition, various officers have been changed looking to the reply filed by the non-applicants, thus, it would be desirable to direct the Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the foregoing directions and whoseover officer found at falut for non-compliance of direction of forthwith reinstatement during the aforesaid period be warned that he should be careful in future in the cases of compliance of the order of Court. Needless to observe, the said warning be issued after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned erring officer. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is further made clear here that the applicant would be entitled for the cost which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/- in each case and be recoverable from personal pay of the non-applicants whosoever found at fault by the Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order and thereafter, the compliance be reported to the Bench Registry of this Court. 10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant contends that by passing the order of reinstatement belatedly, the applicant has been deprived from the salary of the aforesaid two years because nothing has been stated about the payment of salary of such period in the order dated 16.3.2012. However, he would be deprived by the salary from 6.4.2012 i.e. passing of order in Writ Petition till the reinstatement, however, directions may be issued to pay salary of aforesaid period. The contention so advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant appears to be just but looking to the scope of contempt jurisdiction which is being exercised by this Court, it would be suffice to observe that the applicant may submit a representation claiming salary of the said period and non-applicants may pass appropriate order in this regard. The contention so advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant appears to be just but looking to the scope of contempt jurisdiction which is being exercised by this Court, it would be suffice to observe that the applicant may submit a representation claiming salary of the said period and non-applicants may pass appropriate order in this regard. On being aggrieved by such order, applicant may take recourse of law afresh. With the aforesaid observations, these contempt petitions stand disposed of. Let copy of this order be kept in the record of Contempt Petition No. 389/10 and Contempt Petition No. 390/10.