Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 189 (JHR)

Partha Sarathi Chowdhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – The instant Contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner for non-compliance of order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 345 of 2017, whereby this Court while disposing of the writ application directed the respondents-authorities " to allow the petitioner four weeks'' time to submit his reply on the enquiry report in the second show cause notice from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order", however, liberty was reserved with the respondents-authorities to pass appropriate order thereupon in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after pronouncement of the judgment on 02.02.2017, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on the same date i.e. 02.02.2017 and got the same on 20.02.2017. It has further been submitted that petitioner has well in advance vide letter dated 02.02.2017 informed the Additional Chief Secretary-cumDisciplinary Authority regarding the order passed by this Court, but the Opposite Parties without waiting for the copy of impugned order and knowing the contents of the order, having full knowledge that order has been passed in favour of the petitioner and four weeks'' time has been granted to give reply to second show cause notice to the petitioner, terminated the petitioner vide notification dated 15.02.2017 in utter violation of the order passed by this Court. However, the petitioner after getting the certified copy of order dated 02.02.2017 represented before the respondents-authorites to reinstate the petitioner in services revoking his termination. It has further been submitted that after the petitioner filed the present contempt petition, taking cognizance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 345 of 2017 dated 02.02.2017 Opposite Parties have withdrawn the order of termination dated 15.02.2017 vide notification dated 13.09.2017 and have given four weeks'' time to file reply to second show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court, the second show cause notice asking reply against proposed punishment is different from the second show cause asking reply against the enquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court, the second show cause notice asking reply against proposed punishment is different from the second show cause asking reply against the enquiry report. In the case at hand, this Court has in unequivocal terms has given four weeks'' time to the petitioner to reply against the enquiry reports but that order has been misread by the respondents-authorities and made themselves liable to be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of Contempt of Court Act. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the petitioner only informed that the order has been passed and even after receipt of certified copy of order on 20.02.2017, he submitted his representation on 27.02.2017. It has further been submitted that on the demand of petitioner, he was supplied copy of departmental proceeding report along with annexures on 16.01.2017 but instead of replying on the same, he straightway moved this Court only to delay the proceeding. It has been submitted that even otherwise also, after obtaining necessary approval of Hon''ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand issued a notification dated 13.09.2017 whereby order of termination dated 15.02.2017 was withdrawn and the petitioner was afforded with opportunity to file reply within four weeks and thereby the opposite parties complied the order passed by this Court and the opposite parties at no point had any intention to defy the order passed by this Court. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that due to communication gap between the department and law officers, the order of termination was passed, though it was later on withdrawn and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to reply within four weeks. Hence, this case does not come under the purview and ambit of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. But, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner intimated that the order has been passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 345 of 2017 well within time, under such situation, the opposite parties ought to have wait for the order in black an white instead of proceeding any further that too coming on a final conclusion. However, the opposite parties have by notification dated 13.09.2017 rectified their act by way of withdrawing the earlier order passed whereby the petitioner was terminated and petitioner was granted four weeks time to reply on the same. Be that as it may be, such act of respondents is not countenanced at all. However, in the circumstances of the case, this Court is not passing any order to saddle with cost or stricture, however, I henceforth, hope and trust the State functionary to be vigilant and careful in such matter. 6. In such view of the matter, since the order has substantially been complied with, the contempt proceeding is dropped giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final order or any order subsequent thereto passed by the opposite parties, in accordance with law.