Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 20 of 2007 Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- J.S. Deepak, Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Mishra,Somesh Khare,V.K. Singh Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
The applicant who was working as Basic Eduction Officer, was
suspended vide order dated 24.7.2003. A charge sheet was also
issued by the inquiry officer in August, 2003, to which the
applicant submitted his reply soon thereafter. Thereafter when the
inquiry did not proceed, the applicant filed Writ Petition before
this Court being Writ Petition No.24644 of 2005, which was
disposed of vide order dated 31.3.2005 with a direction that
subsistence allowance be paid to the applicant in case there is no
legal impediment within three weeks from the date of filing of the
certified copy of the order and further that the disciplinary
proceedings be also concluded expeditiously preferably within
three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the
order. The directions of the writ Court contained in the order dated
31.3.2005 were not complied with whereupon the applicant was
compelled to file another writ petition before this Court being Writ
Petition No.52287 of 2005 challenging the suspension order. This
Court vide order dated 28.7.2005 issued another direction staying
the suspension order dated 24.7.2003 provided disciplinary inquiry
has not been concluded. Admittedly the inquiry had not been
concluded. The Court had further directed that before proceeding
further with the departmental inquiry, if the subsistence allowance
has not been paid to the applicant the same will be paid along with
the arrears. Even this direction of the writ court was not complied
with by the opposite party which compelled the applicant to file
Contempt Application No.3644 of 2005, in which directions were
issued on 26.4.2006 giving one more opportunity to the opposite
party to make the payments of the dues of the subsistence
allowance and salary to the applicant. In the meantime without
complying with the directions of the writ Court the opposite party
took a decision to dismiss the applicant from service and refer the
matter to the U.P. Public Service Commission for its approval by
order dated 10.1.2006. The applicant filed Writ Petition No.14083
of 2006 assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.1.2006. This
Court vide order dated 8.3.2006 stayed the order dated 10.1.2006,
till 10.4.2006 and further required the respondents therein to
explain how they had proceeded to obey the orders of the division
benches regarding payment of subsistence allowance and salary to
the applicant. According to the applicant an application for
extension of the stay was filed in Writ Petition No.14083 of 2006
which could be taken up on 18.10.2006 and the interim order
granted earlier was extended till the next date of listing. Again the
matter was taken up on 7.12.2006 and the earlier interim order
granted by this Court was extended until and unless further orders
are passed by this Court. According to the applicant the order
extending the stay order was communicated to the opposite party.
This Contempt application has been filed alleging non
compliance /violation of the orders of the writ court dated 8.3.2006
as extended from time to time. In the supplementary affidavit filed
today it has been brought on record that the Secretary, Basic
Education has passed an order dated 24.1.2008 dismissing the
applicant from service which is in further violation of the interim
orders of this Court.
Notices were issued whereupon the opposite party had filed a
counter affidavit dated 7.2.2007. Further Sri D.N. Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel has referred to another supplementary counter
affidavit dated 23.2.2007. From the aforesaid affidavits the
defence of the opposite party appears to be only to the limited
extent that the Writ Petition No.14083 of 2006 was not
maintainable as it has been filed against noting dated 10.1.2006
and there was no such order dated 10.1.2006. The admitted
position is that the writ petition is still pending and the interim
order is continuing. Even otherwise the defence taken that the writ
petition was not maintainable against a noting cannot be looked
into in the contempt jurisdiction and it can only be examined
before the writ court. It has further been submitted by Sri D.N.
Mishra that the counter affidavit alongwith the stay vacation
application have been filed in the writ petition also.
Heard Sri S.P. Pandey and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsels for
the applicant and Sri D.N. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the opposite party.
The submission advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the
opposite party has not only flouted the order passed by the writ
court dated 8.3.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.14083 of 2006 but
had also been repeatedly flouting the earlier orders of this court
passed in writ petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 24644 of 2005
and 52287 of 2005.
It is submitted that although the writ court by order dated 8.3.2006
had stayed the order dated 10.1.2006 whereby decision has been
taken to dismiss the applicant and to refer the matter to the
Secretary of the U.P. Public Service Commission and also the
Hon’ble Minister if necessary, but despite the same the opposite
party i.e. Secretary, Basic Education not only referred the matter to
the Commission but also passed final order of dismissal on
21.4.2008, even though the interim order was in force on that day.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant it is a fit case in
which the authority who had passed the order of dismissal of the
applicant should be punished for wilful disobedience of the orders
of this Court.
On the other hand Sri D.N. Mishra learned Standing Counsel has
submitted firstly that there was no interim order from 11.4.2006
till 17.10.2006, and secondly that as there was no order dated
10.1.2006, the writ petition filed only against the noting of the
even date, was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the
papers had been forwarded to the Commission on 17.10.2006 at
the time when there was no interim order.
Without going into the question as to whether the papers have been
forwarded on 17.10.2006 wilfully, deliberately and mischievously
as it was the last day, on which there was no interim order but still,
the order dated 21.4.2008 dismissing the applicant from service,
would result into wilful disobedience of the order of this Court
dated 8.3.2006 as extended from time to time.
The order dated 21.4.2008 has been passed by Raj Pratap Singh,
the then Secretary, Basic Eduction. The Court has been informed
that presently the Secretary, Basic Eduction is Anoop Chandra
Pandey.
List on 17.2.2010 for further orders.
Both the said officers shall remain present before this Court on the
next date.
A copy of this order may be provided to Sri D.N. Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel within 48 hours for necessary compliance free of
costs.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010
RPS