THOMAS Vs. BHASKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule calling upon the respondents(Sri S.Balakrishnan Nair,Headmaster,St.Augustine's High School,Ramapuram and Sri C.N.Parameswaran Pillay,District Educational Officer,Palai ),to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of court.The rule has been sought by Sri P.A.Thomas,a trained graduate -assistant of the said school. The following facts are relevant,for a proper appreciation of the questions mooted before us:" The petitioner was at logger heads with the former Headmaster Sri P.A.Ulahannan,who according to him was guilty of misappropriation of school funds.Complaints from parents and the general public against his acts of misappropriation proved futile.Finally the petitioner Himself had to take it up and he moved the Anti -corruption Department by a petition to vindicate the prestige and honour of the institution.For preferring such a petition to the Anti -corruption Tribunal,disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner by the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction,Ernakulam(hereinafter referred to as R.D.D.) and by way of punishment his salary was reduced from Rs.165 to Rs.157 1/2 ;.This according to the petitioner provided a handle to Ulahannan to continue his objectionable activities unabated,and they reached such a crisis that finally the R.D.D.himself had to take action against him.As a result of such action he was degraded from the post of Headmaster to that of an ordinary assistant.

(2.) AGAINST the order reducing the petitioner's salary,a writ O.P.3246/64 was filed by him,from which a rule nisi was issued from this court to the R.D.D.and the Headmaster on 16th December 1964 and the same day from C.M.P.8075/64 an interim order staying the operation of the order reducing the salary was also issued.A copy of the order issued from this court in the O.P.is Ext.P -1.At that time,respondent No.1 Sri Balakrishnan Nair was the Headmaster of the school and he refused to present the petitioner's pay bill even though the operation of the R.D.D.s order reducing the pay was stayed by this court.Salary for the months of November and December 1964,and January 1965 had fallen due by the time and it was the duty of the first respondent in his capacity as Headmaster to present the salary bill.The procedure prescribed by the Education Act and the Rules is that the salary bill should be presented by the Headmaster to the D.E.O.who will return it after his countersignature and the same will be presented by the Headmaster for encashment in the treasury.The petitioner,aggrieved by the Headmaster's refusal to present the pay bill,sent letters to both the respondents on 9th January 1965 apprising them of the passing of the stay order by this court and requesting them to present the bill and disburse to him the pay to which he was entitled.But neither of them cared to send him any reply.So,on 22nd January 1965 a registered notice was sent reminding them of his previous letter and also inviting their pointed attention to the seriousness of the matter.Copy of the registered notice is Ext.P -2.To this notice,a reply was received from the first respondent dated 25th January 1965 stating that the second respondent had issued instructions to him to withhold the petitioner's pay pending final orders of the High Court on the O.P.and hence it was not possible for him to prepare the bill.The petitioner again wrote to the first respondent on 1st February 1965 pointing out to him that his refusal to present the bill would amount to contempt of court in view of the stay order issued from this court.In answer to that letter the first respondent wrote back to say that the R.D.D.had asked him to convey the warning against sending letters direct to him.Thereafter on 8th February 1965 the petitioner sent another registered letter to the second respondent questioning the legality,justice and propriety of his orders,and asking him to stop his wrong doing against him in defiance of the High Court order.Copy of that registered letter is Ext.P -3.The conduct of the respondents according to the petitioner,is grave and manifest contempt of this court and it is prayed that appropriate action for contempt may be taken against the respondents. The charge of contempt is met by the respondents in this way:"

(3.) THE first respondent has stated in his counter that he was appointed Headmaster on 10th December 1964 only,and he was not a party to the O.P.from which the stay order was issued.At the time the O.P.was filed the Headmaster was Sri Ulahannan.Under instructions from the R.D.D .,the salary bill at the reduced rate was prepared by him and it was got countersigned by the D.E.O.and after encashment when the amount was offered to the petitioner,he refused to accept it.A letter was sent by him stating why the amount was declined by him.That letter is dated 30th December 1964.No mention was,however,made in it of the writ application or the stay order.The bill for the month of December 1964 had also been presented by him,but that was returned by the D.E.O.with the endorsement Withheld pending final orders on his appeal in the High Court &rsquo ;.The petitioner thereafter wrote to this respondent on 9th January 1965 and in that letter he had stated about the stay order.But even from that letter the exact nature of the stay order could not be gathered.On 19th March 1965,however,a copy of the stay order was received by this respondent along with the notice of the present petition.Bills for the months of January and February 1965 were not presented since the respondent was advised not to do so by the D.E.O.The petitioner's letter dated 9th January 1965 and the registered notice dated 22nd January 1965 were received by this respondent.On 2nd February 1965 a letter was received by the respondent from the D.E.O.stating that the matter had been referred by him to the R.D.D.and his orders were awaited.That fact was intimated to the petitioner by this respondent on 2nd February 1965.When further pressed by the petitioner,this respondent wrote to the D.E.O.again and the D.E.O.wrote back to say that the matter had been referred to the R.D.D.and to ask the petitioner to wait.On 13th March 1965 another letter was received by this respondent from the D.E.O.bearing the date 22nd February 1965 asking this respondent to present the pay bill of the petitioner at the original rate,but with the definite understanding that the petitioner should refund the excess,in case the decision in the writ petition went against him.Accordingly the arrear bill for November and December 1964 and January and February 1965 was presented and the cash was duly disbursed to the petitioner.It was never the intention of this respondent to disobey the order of this court or to cause any hardship or inconvenience to the petitioner.The respondent was only complying with the orders of his department without the least intention of disobeying any of the orders passed by this court. The second respondent has raised the following contentions:"