Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 136 (MP)

D. P. Choudhary v. State of M. P.

2013-01-29

ALOK ARADHE

body2013
JUDGMENT : Shri Ashok Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. D. K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the intervener. Heard. 2. The petitioner, who was posted as Principal in Government Higher Secondary School No. 2, Niwari, was transferred vide order dated 15-6-2012 from Niwari to Government Higher Secondary School, Upani, Distt. Sidhi. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of transfer in a writ petition namely W.P. No. 9111/2012(s). The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 9-7-2012 with the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the departmental remedies which may be available to him. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner through another counsel, by suppressing the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition and its dismissal, filed the present writ petition in which initially an interim order dated 18-10-2012 was passed by a Bench of this Court. The intervener brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Bench of this Court. Accordingly, vide order dated 5-12-2012, this Court inter alia held that the aforesaid action of the petitioner amounts to interference in the due course of administration of justice. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to remain personally present before the Court and to show cause as to why proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner is present before this Court along with his counsel and has filed the reply. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has highest regards for the authority of this Court and the petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had engaged Shri A. D. Mishra as his counsel. However, Shri A. D. Mishra returned the file to the petitioner and informed him that on account of some technical difficulty, the writ petition preferred by him would be dismissed. The petitioner was advised to contact another counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner contracted Shri Snyal, Advocate for filing another writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed by Shri Sanyal. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order of transfer, the petitioner has been relieved on 17-1-2013 and he has joined at the present place of posting on 22-1-2013. The petitioner was advised to contact another counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner contracted Shri Snyal, Advocate for filing another writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed by Shri Sanyal. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order of transfer, the petitioner has been relieved on 17-1-2013 and he has joined at the present place of posting on 22-1-2013. Therefore, the petitioner does not want to prosecute the writ petition. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the reply. The petitioner along with the reply has neither filed the affidavit of Shri A. D. Mishra nor the affidavit of Shri Sanyal. The petitioner in his reply has also not explained the circumstances in which the second writ petition was filed. The conduct of the petitioner in filing the second writ petition by suppressing the factum of dismissal of earlier writ petition is highly deplorable and amounts to misuse of the process of law. In the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner who is a Principal and belongs to a noble profession of teaching is deprecated. 6. However, taking into account the fact that petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology and has joined at the transferred place of posting, the petitioner is directed to be more carefully in future. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal, which shall form part of service record of the petitioner. In addition, it is further directed that petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) by way of fine in the office of High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today failing which, appropriate action shall be taken against him. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.