ORDER
1. In L.P.A. No. 367 of 2000 (R) on 16.8.2001 the following interim order was passed by the Division Bench:–
“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and stay the operation of the judgment under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge and also stay and suspend the operation of the impugned transfer order and by ordering restoration of status-quo-ante as appearing prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order relegate the petitioners- appellants to their respective original positions.”
2. This contempt application is based on the aforesaid Division Bench Order linked with the petitioner’s grievance that on 12.11.2002, months after the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Khunti. Notice of show cause was issued and Mr. Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi filed his show cause on 28.1.2003, in which he basically raised two pleas. The first plea was that the petitioner vide Order dated 12.11.2002 was transferred from Ranchi to Khunti within the same district and because the Division Bench Order dated 16.8.2001, as per the understanding of the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi did not restrain any intra-district transfer, the issuance of the order dated 12.11.2002 was not an act of violation of the aforesaid Division Bench Order. The second plea was that the officer competent to transfer was the District Registrar and he merely being a District Sub-Registrar was subordinate to the District Registrar and, therefore, the Contempt Proceedings against him should not proceed. In other words what he implied meant by this averment was that Contempt, if at all, might have been committed by the District Registrar. Actually, it was because of the second plea that we called upon the District Registrar to appear and file his show cause, even though the petitioner had not originally impleaded him as a Respondent-Contemnor in this case.
3. The District Registrar has filed his show cause, a reading whereof clearly reveals that he had joined on the post of District Registrar on 16.9.2002. On 19.10.2002 a proposal was placed before him by Shri Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi for transferring the petitioner from Ranchi to Khunti. A copy of this proposal/note is filed as Annexure-A/1 with the show cause of the. District Registrar, a perusal whereof does show that in this proposal/note Shri Rup Lal Manjhi did not even care to inform the District Registrar about the passing of the aforesaid Division Bench Order on 16.8.2001 and the fact that that Order continued to operate as on the date of submission of that proposal. The District Registrar obviously had no means of acquiring any knowledge about the passing of the Division Bench Order. He went by the advice of his subordinate and in total ignorance of the passing or the continued operation of the aforesaid High Court Order, he approved the proposal, which resulted in the passing of the transfer order on 12.11.2002. The District Registrar, therefore, cannot be held to have committed any Contempt of this Court in any manner. The District Registrar was dragged in these Contempt Proceedings only because Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar unsuccessfully tried to shift the blame upon him. If he thought that under the cloak of shifting the blame on the District Registrar, he might succeed in avoiding his liability of answering the Contempt Charge, to say the least, the conduct of Shri Rup Lal Manjhi in doing so and thereby unnecessarily dragging his Superior Officer into the Contempt dragnet and also thus in unsuccessfully trying to extricate him, is very deplorable and totally unbecoming of a disciplined Government Servant.
4. Shri Rup Lal Manjhi has not pleaded the ignorance on his part of the Division Bench Order dated 16.8.2001, Despite his clear knowledge of the passing of that order and despite he being the person directly responsible in the matter, in failing to record in his note dated 19.10.2002 the fact about the passing of the Order by the Court he also committed an act of dereliction of duty in misleading his Superior Officer about the existence and continued operation of the High Court Order.
5. Coming to the specific charge of committing Contempt of this Court, we have no doubt that despite his knowledge of the High Court Order, he having proposed the transfer of the petitioner from Ranchi to Khunti, he is the only person who can be said to have committed the Contempt of this Court. His plea that the High Court Order dated 16.8.2001 did not restrain the Respondents from ordering intra-district transfer (and therefore, the transfer order dated 12.11.2002 should not be construed as committing any Contempt of Court) cannot be held to be tenable or acceptable because the Division Bench Order dated 16.8.2001 in terms was clear and unequivocal, inasmuch as by ordering the restoration of status-quo-ante it also relegated the petitioner to his original position. This Court cannot permit a party to litigation to go behind the clear language employed in a categorical and an unequivocal Order. If in a situation like the present one the Respondents understood that the aforesaid High Court Order only restrained inter-district transfer, the only course of action available to them was to approach this Court for a clarification and only after this Court had issued such a clarification, it was permissible to the Respondents to venture into the arena of either modifying the earlier transfer order or to issue a fresh transfer order. Rightly or wrongly as long as the Division Bench Order dated 16.8.2001 subsisted, there was a blanket ban upon the Respondents to further transfer the petitioner from the post he was holding and the only way this blanket ban could be got lifted was through to another Court Order, which the Respondents could have obtained from this Court, through a vacation/modification/clarificatory application. Rather than doing that, the Respondent (Contemnor Shri Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar) took upon himself the task of altering the posting of the petitioner. This was in clear violation of the binding direction of this Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding Shri Rup Lal Manjhi guilty of having committed Contempt of this Court.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General has very vehemently pleaded before us to take a lenient view with regard to the sentence to be imposed upon the Contemnor. Mr. Sinha’s persistent plea was that Shri Rup Lal Manjhi might have done the aforesaid act in his simplicity. Even though we do not agree with Mr. Sinha’s contention that he might have done this act in simplicity, we do tend to take it leniently in so far as the sentencing is concerned and accordingly let off the contemnor with a stern warning to be very, very careful in future while dealing with the Orders passed by this Court or by other Judicial Authorities.
7. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand for his information.
8. The Contempt Application is accordingly disposed of.