Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 353 (UTT)

SEEMA BHATT v. RANVEER SINGH

2015-07-16

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Applicant, claiming herself to be an R.T.I Activist has invoked contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 requesting this Court that opposite parties may be punished for passing the various transfer orders in gross violation of the guidelines issued by Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 28.08.2014, rendered in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 50 of 2014, Jagmohan Soni Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and Writ Petition No. (S/B) 91 of 2014, Pushpa Rani Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 50 of 2014, Jagmohan Soni Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and Writ Petition No. (S/B) 91 of 2014, Pushpa Rani Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, in paragraph 4 of the judgment has made following observation which reads as under:- “In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 91 of 2014 (Pushpa Rani Verma versus State of Uttarakhand and others) a reference to the letter written by the Leader of Opposition, dated 27th January, 2014 has been made in the office noting in respect of transfer of one Dinesh Chandra Sati. In the said noting, it is also mentioned that the Hon’ble Minister has issued direction for cancelling the transfer orders of ten District Education Officers and for keeping them at the place, where they were working. We expect that in future all the concerned officers of the State Government will not be influenced in any manner by the letter or direction issued by the political leaders and will pass transfer orders strictly in accordance with the norms settled by the State Government or in accordance with the relevant rules. Let copies of this judgment be sent to the Principal Secretaries of every Department of the State Government.” 3. It is contended by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel, appearing for the contempt applicant, that OPs have issued several transfer orders on the recommendation of the concerned Ministers as reflected in the copies of the record of transfers obtained under the R.T.I. Act. 4. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Advocate General, appearing for the OPs as well as the State, fairly contended that just to honour the observation and expectations made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 28.08.2014, Government has made transfer policy dealing with the issue. 4. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Advocate General, appearing for the OPs as well as the State, fairly contended that just to honour the observation and expectations made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 28.08.2014, Government has made transfer policy dealing with the issue. Further contends that every Minister or public Authority, if has any complaint/grievance about the working of any employee, is always at liberty to bring his mis-deeds in the knowledge of the State Government and State Government after due consideration of those allegations, if deems fit, may always pass transfer orders in accordance with law. He, however, fairly submits that simplicitor recommendation to transfer particular Officer / officials without there being any complaint or compelling circumstances shall not be taken into consideration and while passing the transfer orders, Government shall abide by the transfer policy. 5. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Advocate General further contends that since none of the transferees has challenged his transfer on the ground that his transfer was made with ulterior motive, against the transfer policy, simplicitor on the recommendation of the Minister, therefore, it is not open to the contempt applicant to say that those transfers were made with ulterior motive, simplictor on the recommendation of the Minister concerned to please him, against the transfer policy in the mid term. 6. Civil contempt is defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which reads as under :- “(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court;” 7. The bare reading of the definition of “Civil Contempt” would demonstrate that to make out a civil contempt, contempt applicant must prove that there was willful dis-obedience to any judgment, order or direction or there was a willful breach of undertaking given to the Court. 8. I find force in the submission of Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Advocate General that willful dis-0bedince/violation of any judgment, decree or order or undertaking is sine-quo-non to make out civil contempt. 9. Since, none of the transferees has challenged his transfer order saying that transfer order was passed with ulterior motive, simplicitor on the recommendation of the Minister/politician, in gross violation of the transfer policy, in the mid term, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the alleged transfer orders. 10. 9. Since, none of the transferees has challenged his transfer order saying that transfer order was passed with ulterior motive, simplicitor on the recommendation of the Minister/politician, in gross violation of the transfer policy, in the mid term, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the alleged transfer orders. 10. That being so, it cannot be said that while transferring the Government employees, observations made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 28.08.2014 was willfully violated. 11. Consequently, civil contempt cannot be said to have been made out. 12. In the result, contempt application fails and is hereby dismissed. However, State Government shall be more careful in future and shall pass the transfer orders strictly as per the transfer policy, as suggested by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Advocate General, appearing for the OPs./ State.