Skip to content


Hiralal Sharma Vs. Railway Shramik Sahkari Bank Bikaner Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContempt of Court
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 17 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)301
AppellantHiralal Sharma
RespondentRailway Shramik Sahkari Bank Bikaner Ltd. and ors.
Cases Referred and Umed Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
contempt of courts act, 1971 - interim order--disobedience of--stay order operative till disposal of writ-interim order passed on 21-9-1982 staying retirement order of 12-5-1982--held, order of retirement passed on 16-12-1982 was disobeaience of interim order.;the interim order that was passed by the learned single judge on september 27, 1982 did no cease to be operative on october 5, 1982 but continued to be operative till the disposal of the writ petition.;it was not competent for non-petitioners no. 2 and 3 to pass an order for retirement of the petition on december 16, 1982 in as much as on that date the interim order dated september 27, 1932 staying the operation of the order dated may 12, 1982 was operative and it must be held that the order of retirement that was passed by.....s.c. agarwal, j.1. hiralal sharma, the petitioner in this petition filed under section 12 of the contempt of court act. 1977 was an employee of the railway shramik sahkari bank bikaner limited, bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the sahakari bank') non-petitioner no. 1 herein shri k.c. golecha, non-petitioner no. 2, is the manager of the sahkari bank and shri kanhaiya lal bhojak non-petitioner no. 3 is the honorary secretary of the sahkari bank. by notice dated may 12,1982, the petitioner was informed that he will retire from service of the sahakari bank on september 30, 1982 on attaining the age of 55 years. the petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid notice of retirement dated may 12, 1982 by filing a writ petition, s.b. civil writ petition no. 1827 of 1982. along with the.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agarwal, J.

1. Hiralal Sharma, the petitioner in this petition filed Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. 1977 was an employee of the Railway Shramik Sahkari Bank Bikaner Limited, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sahakari Bank') non-petitioner No. 1 herein Shri K.C. Golecha, non-petitioner No. 2, is the Manager of the Sahkari Bank and Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bhojak non-petitioner No. 3 is the Honorary Secretary of the Sahkari Bank. By notice dated May 12,1982, the petitioner was informed that he will retire from service of the Sahakari Bank on September 30, 1982 on attaining the age of 55 years. The petitioner challenged the validity of the aforesaid notice of retirement dated May 12, 1982 by filing a writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1827 of 1982. Along with the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner also filed a petition for stay of the operation of the order dated May 12, 1972. On the said stay application, this Court passed an order dated September 27, 1982 whereby the operation of the notice dated May 12,1982 was stayed. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court (D L. Mehta, J.) by order dated December 15, 1982 On the date of passing of the said order dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner moved an application for stay of the operation of the judgment for a week and for direction to the respondent to the writ petition not to effect the retirement of the petitioner. On the said application, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated December 15, 1982 whereby he stayed the operation of the order dated December 15, 1982, dismissing the writ petition, for a period of one week. The petitioner filed an appeal (D B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982) against the order dated December 15, 1982 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition Along with the said special appeal, the petitioner also filed a stay petition for an interim order direction the respondents to the appeal not to effect the retirement of the petitioner till the disposal of the special appeal. The aforesaid special appeal as well as the stay petition came up for orders before a Division Bench of this Court on December 20, 1982. By order of the said date, the special appeal was admitted. On the stay petition, this Court passed an order on December 20, 1982 for issue of notice to the respondents and in the meanwhile, the operation of the notice dated May 12, 1982 was stayed after service of the notices of the stay petition on the respondents, the stay petition was placed for orders before the Division Bench of this Court on January 5, 1983 and on that date, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and the interim order dated December 20, 1982 was confirmed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that after the passing of the order dated December 15, 1982 by the learned single Judge, the petitioner reported for duty on December, 18, 1982 and submitted an application before non-petitioner No. 2. On the said application non-petitioner No. 2 made an endorsement that the petitioner had retired from service on December 16, 1982 after noon. The case of the petitioner is that after the passing of the order dated December 20,1982 by this court, the petitioner sent an application dated December 22, 1982 by registered post whereby he informed the Honorary Secretary of the Sahkari Bank, non-petitioner No 3 herein, about the stay order that was passed by this court on December 20, 1982 and along with the said letter he also submitted a certified copy of the order dated December 20, 1982. Non-petitioner No. 2, however, refused to accept the delivery of the said letter. The case of the petitioner is further that after the passing of the order dated January 5, 1983, the petitioner again reported for duty on January 6, 1983 before the non-petitioner No. 3 and also submitted an application dated January 6,1983 to non-petitioner No. 3 and the copy of the said application was also submitted to non-petitioner No. 2 but the petitioner was not taken on duty. The petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid actions of the non-petitioners constitute clear disobedience of the orders of this court and amount to contempt of the orders of this court and that the non-petitioners may be suitably punished for having committed the contempt of the orders of this Court.

3. In the petition, as originally filed, Shri A.K. Bhaduri, Chairman, Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank, Bikaner, was impleaded non-petitioner No 3 and Shri Kanhaiyalal Bhojak, Honorary Secretary of the Sahakari Bank was impleaded as non-petitioner No. 4. After perusing the petition for contempt and the documents filed along with it, this court, by its order dated January 25, 1983 directed that notices be issued to Shri K.C. Golecha, Manager of the Sahkari Bank; Shri A K. Bhaduri, Chairman of the Sahkari Bank and Shri Kanhaiyalal Bhojak, Honorary Secretary of the Sahkari Bank (non-petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 in the petition as originally filed) requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt. Notices were duly served on Shri KC. Golecha and Shri Kanhaiyalal Bhojak and reply has been filed on their behalf. The notices of Shri A.K. Bhaduri could not he served and on March 25,1983, the petitioner moved an application before this Court for striking off the name of Shri Bhaduri from the array of respondents and by order dated August, 1983, the name of Shri Bhaduri was struck off from the array of parties and thereafter Shri Kanhaiyalal Bhojak, who was non-petitioner No. 4 in the petition as originally filed, became non-petitioner No. 3.

4. In the reply that has been filed on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, it has been submitted that after the writ petition had been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated December 15, 1982, no order was passed by the learned single Judge prohibiting the retirement of the petitioner from service and the order that was passed by the learned single Judge on December 15,1982 only stayed the operation of the order dated December 15, 1982 dismissing the writ petition and, therefore, after the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge on December 15,1982, a registered Inland Letter dated December 16, 1982 was sent to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was intimated that he has been retired from service with effect from Decembsr 16, 1982 afternoon. In the said reply, it has been stated that the petitioner appeared in the office of the Sahkari Bank on December 18, 1982 and at that time, he was served with the aforesaied order of retirement dated December 16, 1982 and was also handed over a cheque for Rs. 1657, 85 p. drawn on the Central Co-operative Bank, Bikaner, towards his salary for the period upto December 16, 1982. In the reply, it is further stated that before the passing of the stay order December 20, 1982 by the Division Bench of this Court, the order of retirement dated December 16, 1982 had been passed and the operation of the said order was not stayed by this Court. In the reply, it has been denied that the petitioner had submitted an application dated January 6, 1983 or had reported for duty and it has been stated that a registered letter was received by non-petitioner No. 3 on January 10, 1983 along with the certified copy of the order of this Court and the same was replied on January 15, 1983 whereby the petitioner was told that he had been retired on December 16,1982 afternoon and that he could not be taken back on duty. In the reply aforesaid, it has been stated that the non petitioners had not disobeyed any order of this Court and they were not guilty of contempt of the orders of this Court since the petitioner was retired on December 16, 1982 in the absence of any prohibitory order effecting his retirement and as the retirement of the petitioner had become effective on December 16, 1982, the subsequent order dated December 20, 1982 passed by this Court in the special appeal (D.B Civil Special Appeal No.713 of 1982) staying the operation of the notice dated May 12, 1982 could not be complied with. In the reply aforesaid, the non-petitioners have also submitted that the petitioner had concealed from the Court certain material and. vital facts about the real state of affairs in respect of the petitioner's retirement and he was thus guilty of contempt of Court by defrauding this Court and obtaining orders on false facts. In the reply aforesaid, the non-petitioners also submitted that the non-petitioner never intended to disobey the orders of this Court and have acted bonafide in retiring the petitioner from service under the belief that there was no stay regarding the operation of the order dated May 12, 1982 and hence, they were competent to retire the petitioner after the dismissal of the writ petition and it has been further submitted that in case this Court finds that the non-petitioners have committed contempt of Court by disobeying the orders of this Court, then the non-petitioners express a regret and they may be pardoned.

5. We have heard Shri Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.L. Chhangani, learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 2 and 3. During the course of hearing, Shri Chhangani stated that the non-petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were not in a position to take back the petitioenr in service as, according to them, he has already been retired.

6. Shri Mridul has submitted that non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have committed contempt of this Court by willfully disobeying the stay order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on December 15, 1982 in as much as inspite of the aforesaid stay order, non-petitioner No. 3 passed the order dated December 16, 1982 where by the petitioner was retired from service with effect from December 16, 1982 afternoon. Shri Mridul has further submitted that apart from disobedience of the order of the learned single Judge, the non-petitioners have also disobeyed the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982 in as much as even though by the aforesaid orders the operation of the order dated May 12, 1982 had been stayed by this Court, the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 did not obey the aforesaid orders of this Court and refused to take back the petitioner on duty after December 20, 1982 even though the petitioner had reported for duty.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of Shri Mridul, two questions arise for consideration:

(1) Have non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, in passing the order dated December 16, 1982 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from December 16, 1982 afternoon, disobeyed the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1827 of 1982?

(2) Have non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, in refusing to take back the petitioner in service after the passing of the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982, disabeyed the said orders?

In so far as the first question is concerned, it may be observed that there is no dispute that in S.B. Civil writ petition No. 1827 of 1982, the learned single Judge had passed an order on September 27, 1982 on the stay petition filed by the petitioner where by the operation of the order dated May 12, 1982 with regard to the retirement of the petitioner from service had been stayed. The submission of Shri Chhangani, the learned Counsel for non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, was that the aforesaid order that was passed by the learned single Judge, remained in operation only till October 5, 1982 and that the said order was not continued beyond October 5,1982. In support of the aforesaid submission, Shri Chhangani has invited our attention to the order dated September 27, 1982 passed by the learned single Judge on the stay petition. The said order reads as under.-

Heard learned Counsel for the parties, put up on October 5, 1982 along with the main case. Meanwhile the operation of the order Annexure-I dated May 12, 1982, shall remain stayed.

8. The submission of Shri Chhangani was that in view of the aforesaid order, the interim order that was passed on the stay petition on September 27, 1982 with regard to the stay of operation of the order dated May 12, 1982 was operative only upto October 5, 1982 and since no specific order extending the operation of the interim order was passed on October 5, 1982 or there after, the interim order passed on September 27, 1982 came to an end on October 5, 1982. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Shri Chhangani. In our opinion, the purport of the order that was passed by the learned single Judge on September 27, 1982 was that the stay petition may be listed along with main writ petition which was fixed on October 5, 1982 and that the interim order that was being passed would continue in the meanwhile, i.e., till any other order was passed. On October 5, 1982 and subsequently till the dismissel of the writ petition on December 15, 1982 no order was passed by the learned single Judge vacating the stay order that was passed on September 21, 1982. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the interim order that was passed by the learned single Judge on September 27, 1982 did no cease to be operative on October 5, 1982 but continued to be operative till the disposal of the writ petition.

9. Shri Chhangani next submitted that even if the interim order that was passed by the learned single Judge on September 27, 1982 is so construed as to be operative till the disposal of the writ petition, the said writ petition stood disposed of on December 15, 982 when the learned Single Judge passed the order dismissing the writ petition and that the interim order that was passed on the stay petition on September 27, 1982, ceased to be operative on December 15, 1982. Shri Chhangani has submitted that the stay order dated December 15, 1982 that was pissed by the learned single, Judge only stayed the operation of the order that was passed by him on December 15,1982 dismissing the writ petition but the aforesaid stay order passed by the learned single Judge on December 15, 1982 did not, expressly, or by necessary implication, have the effect of staying the operation of the order dated May 12,1982 and that after December 15, 1982. there was no order in operation whereby the operation of the order dated May 12,1982 was stayed and, therefore, there was nothing to preclude the non-petitioners from retiring the petitioner from service on December 16, 1982 and the order of retirement that was passed by non-petitioner No. 3 on December 16, 1982 cannot be said to have been passed in defiance of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, In our opinion, the aforesaid contention of Shri Chhangani cannot be accepted. Once it is held that the interim order that had been passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition on September 27, 1982 was operative till the disposal of the writ petition, it must be held to be operative on December 15,1982 when the learned single Judge passed the order dismissing the writ petition. Normally, the interim order that was passed in the writ petition on September 27, 1982 would have come to an end on December 15, 1982 when the writ petition was dismissed but on December 15, 1982 itself, the learned single Judge passed an order whereby he stayed the operation of the order dated December 15, 1982 dismissing the writ petition for a period of one week. The effect of the aforesaid order that was passed by the learned single Judge whereby he stayed the operation of the order passed by him on December 15, 1982 for a period of one week was that the order dated December 15, 1982 dismissing the writ petition would not operate for a period of one week from December 5, 1982. The consequence of such an order staying the operation of the order dated December 5, 1982 dismissing the writ petition; for a period of one week was that the interim order dated September 27, 1982 that was operative in the writ petition on the date of the passing of the order dated December 15, 1982 would continue to operate for a further period of one week. In other words, the interim order that was passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition on September 27, 1982 and which was in operation on December 15, 1982 continued to be operative for a further period of one week from December 15, 1982, and it cannot, therefore, be said that on December 15, 1982 there was no order in operation staying the operation of the order dated May 12.1982 In our opinion, it was not competent for non petitioners Nos. 7 and 3 to pass an order for retirement of the petition on December 16, 1982 in as much as on that date the interim order dated September 27,1982 staying the operation of the order dated May 12 1982 was operative and it must be held that the order of retirement that was passed by non-petitioner No. 3 on December 16, 1982 was passed in disobedience of the interim order that had been passed by the learned single Judge on September 27, 1982 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1982 which interim order was continued for a period of one week by the order dated December 15, 1982 passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. We may now take up the second question as to whether non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have disobeyed the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982. The submission of Shri Chhangani was that by the aforesaid orders, the Division Bench of this Court had only stayed the operation of the order dated May 12, 1982, whereby the petitioner was to the retired from service with effect from September 30, 1982 but before the passing of the said orders, the petitioner had already been retired from service on December 16, 1982 and since the petitioner had already been retired from service prior to the passing of the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, the petitioner was not entitled to be taken back in service in pursuance of the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, in refusing to take back the petitioner in service after the passing of the aforesaid orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, cannot be said to have disobeyed the said orders of this Court. We find no force in the aforesaid submission of Shri Chhangani. By order dated December 20, 1982, the Division Bench of this Court, which directed that notices be issued on the stay petition, had passed an interim order staying the operation of the orders of retirement dated May 12, 1982, on January 5, 1983, the aforesaid interim order dated December 20, 1982 was confirmed as nobody appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners even though the notices issued to them were duly served. The effect of the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, whereby the operation of the order dated May 12, 1982 was stayed, was that after the passing of the aforesaid orders, the order of retirement dated May 12, 962, was to be treated as in operative and any action taken on the basis of the said order was also to be treated as in operative In view of the stay of the operation of the order dated May 12, 9 2 by the orders of the Division Banch of this Court dated December 20,19 82 and January 5, 1983, non-petitioners Nos 2 and 3 could not invoke the said order dated May 12, 1982 for the purpose of saying that the petitioner has already retired from service. The order dated December 16, 1982 whereby the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from December 16,1982 afternoon, was passed in pursuance of the order dated May 12, 1982 whereby the petitioner was notified that he would retore from service on attaining the age of 55 years. The aforesaid order of retirement dated December 16, 1982 has no legal existence independent of the order dated May 12, 1982, and if the operation of the said order dated May 12,1982 was stayed by the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated December 20,1982 and January 5, 1983 the order dated December 16, 1982 could not be invoked by non-petitioners Nos 2 and 3 in defence of their refusal to comply with the orders of this Court dated December 20, 982 and January 5, 1983. In our opinion, therefore, in refusing to take back the petitioner in service after the passing of the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 on the ground that the petitioner had already been retired from service on December 16, 1982, non-petitioners Nos 2 and 3 have willfully disobeyed the disections contained in the aforesaid orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1981.

11. Shri Chhangani has submitted that in order to obtain the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, the petitioner did not place all the relevant facts before this Hon'ble Court and that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that by order dated December 16, 1982 he had already been retired from service. The submisaion of Shri Chhangani was that since the petitioner had with held material facts from this Court at the time when the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 were passed, the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for initiiting proceedings for contempt of Court against the non-petitioners. In our opinion the aforesaid contention of Shri Chhangani is without force. In determining as to whether non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 have committed the contempt of this Court by willfully disobeying the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, the conduct of the petitioner who his moved this Court in not of much relevance. Nor can the correctness of the said orders be gone into in these proceedings, If the non-petitioners Nos 2 and 3 had any gievance against the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983, they ought to have moved this Court for vacating the said orders. They did not, however, take any such step. The order dated January 5, 1983 was passed after the notice of the stay application had been served on the non-peititioners. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 cannot justify their disobedience of the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 on the ground that at the time when the said orders were passed by this Court, all the facts were not brought to the notice of this Court.

12. Shri Chhangani has also raised certain technical objections with regard to these proceedings. The first objection that was raised by Shri Chhangani was that the petitioner has rot given the particulars of the orders of this Court which have been disobeyed and that the petitioner has also not Mated that non petitioner have wilfully disobeyed the said orders. In our opinion the aforesaid contention of Shri Chhangani is without any force, In the petition the petitioner has clearly referred to the order dated December 15, 1982 passed by the learned single Judge whereby he stayed the operation of his judgment in the writ petition for a period of one week, and has stated that inspite of the aforesaid order dated December 15, 1982, non-petitioners Nos.2 and 3 did not take back the petitioner in service when he reported for duty on December 18, 1982. In the petition, the petitioner has also referred to the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982 and has stated that even after passing of the said orders non-petitioners Nos.2 a.nd 3 did not take back the petitioner on duty even though he had approached them for that purpose. This would show that in the petition, the petitioner has stated that the order of the learned single Judge dated December 15, 1982 and the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 have been disobeyed by the non-petitioners and it cannot be said that the petitioner has not given the particulars of the orders which have been disobeyed by the non-petitioners. It is true that in the petition the petitioner has not specifically alleged that the non-petitioners has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court but in para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly asserted that the actions of the non-petitioners constituted a clear disobedience of the orders of this Court. In our opinion, the non-mention of the word 'wilful' is not of material significance in view of the assertion of the petitioner that the non-petitioners have clearly disobeyed the orders of this Court. The aforesaid objection that has been raised by Shri Chhangani about the maintainability of this petition cannot therefore be accepted.

13. Another objection that was raised by Shri Chhangani was that ore of the orders that is said to have been disobeyed by the non-petitioners was passed by a learned single Judge of this Court and that the jurisdiction to take action for contempt of Court in relation to an order, passed by a learned sir ale Judge of this Court lies with the learned single Judge alone and that this Bench cannot take action for contempt of court against the non-petitioners for the disobedience of the order passed by the learned single Judge. In this regard, Shri Chhangani has submitted that if the Division Bench of this Court takes action against the non-petitioners for contempt of Court of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the non-petitioners would be deprived of the right of appeal to a Division Bench which would, otherwise, have been available to the non-petitioners if the single Judge had dealt with the matter. The aforesaid contention of Shri Chhangani is also without merit. It is true that as a matter of practtce proceedings for contempt in relation to an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court are to be taken by the learned single Judge. But contempt of court in relation to of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court is also a contempt the orders of this Court and. in our view, there is nothing to preclude a Division ench of this Court from taking action against a person who has committed contempt of this court by wilfully disobeying an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. In the present case, non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are found to have committed the contempt of this Court by disobeying the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. If the submission of Shri Chhangani is accepted, this would have meant initiation of two proceedings in respect of the same matter, one before the learned single Judge in relation to the disobedience of the order passed by him and the other before the Division Bench of this Court for the disobedience of the orders passed by the Division Bench. Such a multiplicity of proceedings would be obviated if the Division Bench of this Court takes note of the actions of the non-petitioners in disobeying the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court because all these actions constitute contempt of this Court in the matter of disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in relation to the same single matter. As regards the submission of Shri Chhangani that the non petitioners would be deprived of the right of appeal it may be observed that just as the petitioner would have had a right of appeal before the Division Bench against the order that would have been passed by the learned single Judge, in the same way the nonpetitioners will have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the order that is passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that non-petitioners will in any manner, be prejudicially affected if the Division Bench of this Court takes note of the conduct of non-petitioners Nos 2 to 3 in having committed contempt of this Court in disobeying the orders passed by the learned single Judge

14. It may be mentioned that during the course of his arguments Shri Chhangani has placed reliance on the following decisions State of U.P. v. M.V.Siddiqui 1980 (I) SLR 586, Devan Addhicary v. State of West Bengal : AIR1972Cal84 : Shamsul Hasan v. Kubernath (1975) Cr. L.J. 898 and Umed Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan 1980 RLW 565. We have carefully persued the said decisions. In our view the said decisions have no application to the present case.

15. Shri Chhangani has lastly submitted that the action of nonpetitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in passing the order of retirement dated December 16, 1982 and in not taking the petitioner on duty after the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1983 were passed by the Division Bench of this Court, were teken bonafide under the belief that they were legally justified in taking those actions and that if it is found that the aforesaid action of the non-petitioner constitutes contempt of this Court the nonpetitioners may be pardoned for the same, We have given our careful consideration of the aforesaid submission of Shri Chhangani but we find ourselves unable to accept the same. The order dated December 15,1982 was passed by the learned single Judge on the application that was submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had submitted that he wished to prefer an appeal before the Division Bench against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition and that unless directed otherwise the respondents would immediately effect retirement of the petitioner and it was prayed that the operation of the judgment may be stayed for a week or the respondents be directed not to effect retirement of the petitioner in the meanwhile. A copy of the said application was furnished to the counsel for the non-petitioners and the order dated December 15,1982 where by the learned single Judge had stayed the operation of the order dated December 15,1982 dismissing the writ petition for a period of one week was passed by the learned single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners. In the said order which was passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners the learned single Judge has observed that the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the operation of the order dismissing the writ petition should be stayed as he desires to file an appeal, was very reasonable and the learned single Judge, therefore, allowed the said prayer. The non-petitioners were thus fully aware of the purport of the order that was passed by the learned single Judge when he stayed the operation of the order dated December 15, 1982 dismissing the writ petition for a period of seven days. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the non-petitioners were not aware of the purport of the order that was passed by the learned Single Judge on December 15, 1982. But inspite of that, non-petitioners No. 3, on the next day, i.e. on Decemoer 16,1982, passed the order for retirement of the petitioner. The aforesaid action of non-petitioner No. 3 cannot but be treated as an effort to overreach the Court. Further more, even after the Division Bench of this Court had passed the order dated December 20, 1982 whereby the operation of the order of retirement dated May 12 1982 was stayed and the said order dated December 20, 1982 was confirmed by the order dated January 5, 1983, non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 continued to maintain a defiant attitude on the specifics plea that before the passing of the orders dated December 20,1982 and January 5, 1983, the petitioner had already been retired from service on December 16, 1982. Non-petitioners Nos 2 and 3 have persisted in their aforesaid attitude during these proceedings also and at the time of the hearing of this petition, when asked by this Court, they took the stand that they are not in a position to take back the petitioner in service as, according to them, he has already retired. It cannot be said that the actions of non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in ordering the retirement of the petitioner on December 16, 1982 and in refusing to take back the petitioner in service after the passing of the orders dated December 20,1982 and January 5, 1983, were bonafide. In taking the aforesaid actions non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have, in our view, disclosed a clear intention to defy the orders that were passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in the special appeal and instead of showing any contrition, they have persisted in the said defiance in these proceedings. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the conditional offer of apology that has been made on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 by Shri Chhangani.

16. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that non petitioner No. 3 in passing the order cated December 16, 1982, retiring the petitioner from service and in refusing to take the petitioner back on duty after December 20,1982 and non-petitioner Mo 2 by refusing to take the petitioner on duty when he reported for duty on December 18,1982 and in refusing to take him on duty after December 20,1982 have committed the contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the orders dated September 27.1982 and December 15,1982 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1827 of 1982 and the orders dated December 20, 1982 and January 5, 1982 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 713 of 1982. In our opinion, this is a case in which a suitable punishment should be awarded to non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for having committed the contempt of this Court in wilfully disobeying the orders of the Court. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if a fine of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand only) is imposed on each of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.

17. In the result, it is held that non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the orders that have been passed by this Court and the punishment of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand only) each is imposed on non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. They are given one month's time to deposit the amount of fine imposed one each of them. In the event of the failure to deposit the fine that has been imposed on each of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, the defaulting non-petitioner will undergo imprisonment in civil prison for a period of fifteen days.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //