ORDER
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Notice of admission in this petition was basically given with regard to inclusion of matter mentioned at Sr. No. 2(a) and (c) in the charge sheet. These read as under:
“2(a) Shri Sharma served a legal notice dated 20- 9-1994 from Shri A. M. Naik, Advocate through Regd. letter No. 1249 dated 23-9-1994 to pressurise the management to get transfer from Behat branch to any of the Branch in Gwalior taking a plea that discrimination is done with him.
(b) xx xx xx xx
(c) Mr. Sharma filed a petition at Gwalior High Court against his rotational transfer to Behat branch as Branch Manager, without the bank permission.”
2. A citizen of this country is entitled to have redress through the legal system and merely because a notice has been issued on his behalf it cannot be made a ground or subject matter of an enquiry. The inclusion of such charge would amount to interference with the process of administration of justice. Any kind of threat veiled or apparent which amounts to threatening a person to not to seek redress of his, grievance would amount to contempt as this would amount to preventing the cause of justice.
3. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the decision given by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, . By an order of the Government, a certain amount was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the respondent, a Government servant for the loss suffered by the Government due to certain action of the respondent. Respondent instituted a civil suit was (with) a declaration that the order for the recovery was void and without effect. There was a State Government circular to the effect that it is improper for a Government servant to take recourse to a Court of law before the exhausted the normal channels of redress and that if any recourse to a court of law is taken contrary to the circular, it would be regarded as contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and might justify the initiation of disciplinary action. In accordance with the circular a departmental enquiry was started against the respondent. Upon a petition by the respondent the High Court held that the action of the Government in starting departmental proceeding amounted to contempt of court and the officers conducting and ordering the inquiry were guilty of an offence under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, and directed the officers to abandon the departmental proceedings and were warned against complying with the instructions contained in the circular letter. On an appeal having been preferred in the Supreme Court of India, it was held in categoric terms that asking a person not to pursue his legal remedies would definitely amount to contempt.
4. Similar situation again arose in the case of Govind Singh v. State of U.P., Member of a Congress party was expelled from the congress organisation on the ground that he had resorted to legal proceedings in breach of a resolution passed by the organisation prohibiting the members resorting to law Courts. Vaidialingam, J. speaking for the Bench referred to Oswald, Contempt of Court Third Edition and took note of the following quotation :
“To speak generally, Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation.”
5. After noticing the above quotation, the decision given by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh (supra) was relied upon and it was concluded that the act of expelling would tend to interfere with the administration of justice and such an action would amount to contempt of Court.
6. In the present case, also, the charge quoted above, indicate that action is being token on account of the petitioner having taken recourse to law Courts. Even though this act would fall within the definition of the Contempt of Court, yet, the explanation suggested by the counsel that the bank was not aware of the legal position is accepted. It would meet the ends of justice. If the charges referred to above are set aside.
7. The petitioner would be at liberty to urge before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority that enquiry be not held with regard to other charges also.
Disposed of accordingly.