Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 117 (JHR)

Chandra Bhushan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State- opposite parities . 2. After the last date i.e. 29.11.2013, supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 12.12.2013. Learned A.A.G submitted that the petitioners, who were nominated as Chairman and Members of the State Youth Commission and were removed vide order dated 16.2.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Sports, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand had approached this Court in the W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. Pursuant to the quashing of notification dated 16.2.2013 by this Court vide judgment dated 28.6.2013 passed in W.P.C No. 1181 of 2013, the petitioners assumed the post on 2.7.2013 which has never been objected to by the opposite parties or any official of the State. As such, the contention that the opposite parties- State have disobeyed the judgment of this Court is not true and the order of this Court has been fully complied with. The opposite parties have also tendered unconditional apology and stated that they could not have ever imagined to disobey the order of this Court. 3. Learned A.A.G. further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 issued a letter on 2.7.2013 for convening the meeting of Youth Commission on 10.7.2013 in the capacity of Chairman of the Commission. He also wrote to the Secretary, Department of Sports, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand on 17.7.2013 for appointment of a Member Secretary of the Commission, which are annexed as Annexure-C and D respectively to the show cause filed on 12.12.2013. It has been stated that even the petitioners have accepted in para 6 of the contempt petition that after the judgment of this Court the original notification of their appointment dated 8.1.2013 became effective and, therefore, they started to function by issuing necessary direction and directing the Secretary to call for a meeting of Youth Commission. Learned A.A.G. has submitted that petitioners continued on their post till 20.11.2013 and as a matter of fact the petitioners have also been paid salary for the said period. The letter dated 11.12.2013 and the cheques issued in favour of the petitioners are enclosed as Annexure E, F and F/1 respectively. Learned A.A.G. has also submitted that though the petition seeking review preferred by the State of Jharkhand being Civil Review Nos. The letter dated 11.12.2013 and the cheques issued in favour of the petitioners are enclosed as Annexure E, F and F/1 respectively. Learned A.A.G. has also submitted that though the petition seeking review preferred by the State of Jharkhand being Civil Review Nos. 55 of 2013 and 56 of 2013 challenging the judgment dated 28.6.2013 was dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2013 but this Court clearly observed at para 18 that the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2013 had not dealt with the issues relating to the original appointment of the writ petitioners as Chairman and Member of the Youth Commission. It also observed that notice issued upon the petitioners after passing of the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2013 by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand asking them to explain as to why their services be not terminated as they do not possess the necessary eligibility criteria and qualification for the said post is an independent cause of action for the Respondents to agitate. This Court did not make any comment upon such exercise by the State in the said review petition and the interim order restraining the State authority from taking any final decision in the matter pursuant to the said notice was vacated. It is submitted that the subsequent removal of petitioners from the post of Chairman and Member vide notification dated 20.11.2013 after due notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing to them was not the cause of action in the main writ petition or in the review petition. Therefore, the action of removal of these petitioners vide notification dated 20.11.2013 cannot be said to be an act of defiance of the judgment passed by this Court. In such circumstances, learned A.A.G has submitted that there is no willful disobedience by the opposite parties of the judgment of this Court so as to initiate any proceeding against them. They have otherwise also tendered unconditional apology before this Court for any inadvertence on their part. Therefore, this Contempt Petition deserves to be dropped. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opposite parties never intended to comply with the judgment dated 28.6.2013 and the petitioners were never reinstated on their post after the order of removal dated 16.2.2013 was quashed by this Court. Therefore, this Contempt Petition deserves to be dropped. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opposite parties never intended to comply with the judgment dated 28.6.2013 and the petitioners were never reinstated on their post after the order of removal dated 16.2.2013 was quashed by this Court. It is submitted that petitioners have obtained note sheets dealing with the movement of the file in respect of the reinstatement of these petitioners under R.T.I which is enclosed as Annexure- 1 to the rejoinder filed on 13.12.2013 by the petitioners. It is submitted that a perusal of the notings on the file would indicate that the opposite parties at no stage were intending to allow these petitioners to function and on one pretext or other the judgment was not complied with. Even after the dismissal of the review petitions the opposite parties did not allow these petitioners to function and were removed by the subsequent notification dated 20.11.2013 which is a case of deliberate and willful disobedience of this Court. It has been submitted that opposite parties have tried to show a sham compliance of the judgment by issuing cheques allegedly in the name of paying salary to these petitioners for the period from 8.1.2013 till they were removed on 20.11.2013. However, the said calculation of salary of these petitioners are also not in accordance with the relevant rules. In any case the action of the opposite parties is in teeth of the judgment of this Court for which they should be proceeded against in contempt and punished for the same. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant materials on record, following facts emerge; These petitioners who were appointed as Chairman and Member of the Jharkhand State Youth Commission by notification dated 8.1.2013 issued by the concerned department under the Respondents- Government of Jharkhand had been removed vide notification dated 16.2.2013 in exercise of power under Rule 4(vi) of the Jharkhand Youth Commission Rules, 2012. This Court after considering the rival contention of the parties quashed the impugned notification vide judgment dated 28.6.2013 holding it to be in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioner. This Court after considering the rival contention of the parties quashed the impugned notification vide judgment dated 28.6.2013 holding it to be in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and without giving any opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioner. It held that the impugned notification in exercise of powers under Rule 4(vi) of the 2012 Rules invoking the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be upheld in the eye of law for the facts and reasons discussed therein and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the specific scope of Doctrine of Pleasure. 6. It appears that the State of Jharkhand preferred a review petition against the said judgment being Civil Review No. 55 of 2013 and 56 of 2013 on the ground that concerned documents could not be brought to the notice of the Court during the hearing of the writ petitions. The opposite parties- respondents after passing of the judgment dated 28.6.2013 had also issued show cause notice asking the petitioners to explain as to why they be not removed from their post for failing to possess the necessary eligibility criteria and qualification for the said post. This Court, however by the judgment dated 22.10.2013 did not find any grounds to allow the review petitions, which were dismissed. However, it was observed in the judgment that in the writ petitions this Court had not dealt with the original appointment of the petitioners as Chairman and Member of Youth Commission. While dismissing the review petition it was also observed that issuance of fresh show cause notice was an independent cause of action for the writ petitioners/ respondents therein to agitate. In these circumstances, the Court refrained from commenting upon such exercise by the respondent- State and the interim order passed earlier restraining the State to take any final decision in the matter pursuant to the said notice was vacated. 7. It appears that pursuant to the said notice the petitioners have been removed from their post by notification dated 20.11.2013 after giving opportunity of personal hearing. However, their removal vide notification dated 20.11.2013 certainly was not an issue before this Court while deciding the writ petition being W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. It appears that the petitioners started to function by issuing necessary directions and directing the Secretary of the department to call for a meeting of the Youth Commission. However, their removal vide notification dated 20.11.2013 certainly was not an issue before this Court while deciding the writ petition being W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. It appears that the petitioners started to function by issuing necessary directions and directing the Secretary of the department to call for a meeting of the Youth Commission. The opposite parties have also stated in their show cause that after setting aside of the order of removal of the petitioners from their post and after the petitioners assumed their post, the opposite parties or any other officials never objected to it. However, it appears that the matter was being deliberated in the department and review petitions were also preferred seeking review of the judgment passed in W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. Apart from the same, a fresh notice was also issued to the petitioners asking them to explain as to why they be not removed from their post for not possessing the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post. The opposite parties have also treated the petitioners as having continued on their posts from 8.1.2013 till 20.11.2013, when they were subsequently removed. The opposite parties have also made payment of the salary of the petitioners for the aforesaid period. In such circumstances, though the opposite parties may not have adequately responded by providing infrastructure and other facilities on the request of the petitioners but in the background of the circumstances discussed herein above it cannot be said that opposite parties have deliberately acted in disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.C. 1181 of 2013. They have also offered unconditional apology on their part. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for alleged willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court on 28.6.2013 in W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed and proceedings are dropped.