Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 293 (GAU)

BIKASH DAS v. BIPASHA DEV

2014-03-11

B.P.KATAKEY, P.K.SAIKIA

body2014
JUDGMENT Katakey, J. This appeal by Shri Bikash Das, the contemnor No.6 in Cont. Case (C) No.174/2004, is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge holding the appellant, who was at the relevant point of time Treasury Officer of Silchar Treasury, guilty of contempt of Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 (in short, “1971 Act”) and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. [2] The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be noticed as under:- (i) Pursuant to the order of appointment issued, the contempt petitioner, Smti. Bipasha Dev joined her services as Assistant Teacher in the Lower Primary School on 30th January, 1990. She, thereafter, filed Civil Rule No.2055/1992 praying for a direction to the respondents therein to pay her arrear as well as the current salary. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 24th August, 1999 directing payment of arrear as well as current salary. Since no payment was made, despite the direction issued in the aforesaid writ petition, Cont. Case (C) No.551/2000 was filed, which was closed vide order dated 22nd August, 2002, based on the stand taken by the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Assam that 2(two) proposals, one dated 22nd May, 2001 and the other dated 24th May, 2002 for payment of the sum of Rs.3,59,149/- and Rs.4,73,696/-, respectively, on account of the arrear salary payable to the contempt petitioner for the period from 1st January, 1992 to 31st March, 2002 have been submitted. Since the contempt petitioner was not paid, despite submission of such proposals, she filed WP(C) No.5723/2003, wherein an interim order dated 29th July, 2003 was passed directing payment of current salary. (ii) The contempt petitioner thereafter, filed Cont. Case (C) No.174/2004, i.e. present contempt petition concerned, alleging willful and/or deliberate violation of the Court’s direction contained in the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed in WP(C) No.5723/2003, by the respondents therein, including the present appellant. A single Bench of this Court has found the present appellant guilty of contempt of Court, as despite having the knowledge about the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing payment of the current salary, he was trying to get the clearance from the immediate superior and thereby willfully violated the Court’s direction. Hence, the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal. [3] We have heard Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner/respondent. [4] Referring to the impugned judgment and order, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that admittedly the appellant joined as Treasury Officer in Silchar Treasury on 20th September, 2004, after the earlier Treasury Officer raised the objection on 18th September, 2004 relating to the 2(two) bills submitted by the Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) and since after his joining the Finance Department vide communication dated 1st October, 2004, pursuant to the aforesaid communication issued by the earlier Treasury Officer, instructed the appellant not to honour the bills submitted by the DDO unless the objections are met, followed by the subsequent communication dated 13th October, 2004 to the same effect, the appellant could not made any payment, which cannot be termed as willful and/or deliberate violation of the Court’s direction so as to make the appellant liable for civil contempt under the provisions of the 1971 Act. [5] Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contempt petitioner, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, insofar as it relates to the present appellant, has submitted that since it is evident therefrom that the appellant has raised unnecessary objection despite the clear order passed by this Court on 29th July, 2003 directing payment of the current salary, thereby making hindrance in payment of the salary pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant is guilty of contempt of Court under the provisions of the 1971 Act. [6] We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the pleadings and also the materials available on record. [7] The contempt proceeding is in the nature of a quashi criminal proceeding. “Civil Contempt” has been defined in Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act as willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. For the purpose of holding a person guilty of civil contempt, under the provisions of the 1971 Act, disobedience or the violation of the Courts direction must be willful or deliberate. For the purpose of holding a person guilty of civil contempt, under the provisions of the 1971 Act, disobedience or the violation of the Courts direction must be willful or deliberate. [8] In the instant case, admittedly the appellant joined as Treasury Officer at Silchar Treasury on 20th September, 2004. His predecessor on 18th September, 2004, i.e. 2(two) days prior to his joining, raised certain objections relating to the 2(two) bills submitted by the DDO, for payment of the current salary pursuant to the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed in WP(C) No.5723/2003. Based on the said objection raised, the Finance Department on 1st October, 2004 directed the appellant not to honour the aforesaid 2(two) bills until the Education Department meet the objection raised. The Deputy Commissioner, however, on 18th October, 2004 directed the Treasury Officer to honour the said bills and to make payment, which the present appellant has sent to the Finance Department for advice vide communication dated 11th October, 2004, in view of the Finance Department’s earlier WT Message dated 1st October, 2004. The Finance Department vide WT Message dated 13th October, 2004, thereafter, restrained the present appellant from honouring the said 2(two) bills unless the objections raised on 18th September, 2004 by the earlier Treasury Officer are met by the Education Department. [9] Narration of the aforesaid facts reveals that the objection for honouring the 2(two) bills submitted by the DDO was not raised by the present appellant but was raised by his predecessor prior to the present appellant joined as Treasury Officer at Silcahr Treasury. The present appellant has also not paid/honoured the two bills because of the embargo put by the Finance Department vide WT Messages dated 1st October, 2004 and 13th October, 2004. Being the Treasury Office he is obliged to seek advice from the Finance Department on the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner to honour the 2(two) bills because of the earlier WT message of the Finance Department dated 1st October, 2004 restraining the appellant from honouring the said 2(two) bills. From the aforesaid facts it, therefore, transpires that the action on the part of the present appellant cannot be termed as willful and hence, it would not constitute willful or deliberate violation of the Court’s direction contained in the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed in WP(C) No.5723/2003. From the aforesaid facts it, therefore, transpires that the action on the part of the present appellant cannot be termed as willful and hence, it would not constitute willful or deliberate violation of the Court’s direction contained in the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed in WP(C) No.5723/2003. [10] In the present appeal, we are not dealing with the question as to whether any other person including the earlier Treasury Officer was guilty of contempt of Court, the same being not the subject matter before this Court and the learned single Judge by the impugned order having directed issuance of the contempt proceeding against him. [11] In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Cont. Case (C) No.174/2004, insofar as the appellant is concerned, holding him guilty of contempt, is set aside. [12] The appeal stands allowed. No costs.