BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) v. Amar Singh Bhanu

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: HQn^ble^Mr^Justice N.K. Aearwal Contemot Case (Cl No.68 of 2013 PETITIONER Amar Singh Bhanu RESPONDENT Shri Thakur Ram Singh and others Versus CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA Appearance : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Counsel for tH;d petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachwaha ahd Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Counsel for respondents 3 8& 4.. • ORAL ORDER (04.10.2013) t \; Heard. (2) Alleging willful disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1578/2012 bn 15.10.2012, the complainant is before this Court in this contempt petition. (3) Facts in brief necessary for disposal of this petition are that : the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, thereafter promoted on the post of /f^ ^ '%^,^ ^g^' Upper DMsion H^ax^ei'^^^^^a on the post of Headmaster. ; By way of order dated 27.12.2010, Ihe was posted on the post of Block Resource Coordinator on deputation at Oaurela Block under Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Missibn. Thelneafter, vide order dated 4th of April 2012, services were repatriated back to his parent department. The petitioner filed W.P.(5}No. 1578/2012 challenging the order of repatriation. This Court on

12.04.2012 passed the following interim order in the aforesaid writ petition and other connected writ petitions : Call on in the next week to enable learned counsel appearing for the respondenfe to seek instructions. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall | be taken against the petitioners.?? ^' (4) In Contempt Case (C) No.282/2012 filed by one Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, this Court vide order dated

06.08.2012, while interpreting the words "No coercive shall be takenw occurring in the order dated

12.04.2012, has held the clear effect and import of the interim order passed by the Court is that the petitioner has to be allowed and continued in the present place of posting. This Court thereafter, while hearing the respondents' application for vacating the stay order, vide _3£_1-—•——•——• .•^"^''s"'"""^.. '''•sm% '^;h -^ '" . '^\ n N I, y J s^{':^^ order dated t5.;10.2012 has affirmed the order of stay subject to the following conditions : "I acu not inclined to yacate the intenin order passed earlijer in fayour of each of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions. However, considering the reply of the respondents and material placed before this Court keeping view the administrative exigency, it would be appropriate to direct that during the period the petitioners continue on the strength of the interim order passed by the Court, petitipners shall not be entitled to exercise any financial powers or deal with any sei?.sitive matter pertaining t6 finances and policy. Further, it is made clear that interim order passed in favoUr of ^the petitioners shall not • in the way of ^e ^ J^. respondents taking disciplinary action, warranted, in the exigencies of administration. (5) Subsequently vide order dated 25.02.2013, Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner herein as well as other petitioners with liberty to pass fresh orders, in the interest of administration in accordance with law, within a period of fifteen days from the date of said order. Accordingly, fresh orders were passed and the petitioner is repatriated. '..., .^^,y'..';:^ ,,1 ..h Ll (6) . Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would subm.it that during the intervening period, in willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents not only have withdrawn the petitioner's financial powers but also did not allow him to work. (7) On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha and Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents, by referring to attendance register - Annexure R-3/3, would submit respondents have allowed the petitioner to work on the post, the salary was also paid strictly in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 15.10.2012 and the respondents are not guilty of willful disobedience\ pf the Court orders. (8) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the paper book, I find that the petitioner could not produce any specific order passed by any of the authorities to show that the petitioner has not been allowed to work or that he has been compelled to proceed to comply with the order impugned in the writ petition or any subsequent order, on the basis of which, respondents can be held guilty of willful disobedience of ^""'^- ^^•:: the Court's ordeits). Taking into consideration the overall circumstances qf the case, this Caurt vide order dated

15.10.2012 directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to exercise any financial powers or deal with any ^ensitive matter pertaining to finances and policy and therefore, by nofigiving financial powiers to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any contempt. (9) In the above circumstances, after considering every aspect of the matter, in my opinion, the respondents cannot be held guilty of willful disobedience of Court's orders. In view of the above, I do not fihd any reason to proceed further the matter initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. ^ i (10) Accordingly, the rule is discharged and contempt proceedings are dropped against the respondents. Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge