DULI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Deputy Director of Education in the exercise of his appellate powers under the Intermediate Education Act had partially allowed the appeal of a Teacher, the effect of which was that the teacher V dismissal was converted into the termination of his services from the College. Being aggrieved, the teacher filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the appellate order of the Deputy Director. In the writ petition the Manager of the College are the members 01 the Commit tee of Management were impleaded as opposite parties. At the preli minary hearing this Court finding that there was a prima facie case issued a rule Nisi to the opposite parties and passed an interim order to the effect-

(2.) THE order dated March 6, 1975 was the order of the Deputy Director $ of Education terminating the services of the teacher. After obtain ing this order the teacher concerned approached the management of the College to allow him to resume his duties and to draw his salary according to the rules. The Manager did not pay any heed and even approached the District Inspector of Schools not to sanction the pay ment of salary. However, the District Inspector of Schools who un der the rules is the paying authority sanctioned the payment of salary. The Manager snowed cause against the interim order passed by this Court and submitted that the interim order did not direct the Management to reinstate the teacher and to take work from him and further submitted that the teacher having been suspended by the management earlier during the inquiry against him, the suspension would revive. The application of management for vacating the in terim order was dismissed and the interim order was confirmed by this Court. Even after confirmation the manager did not permit the teacher to join duties. In these circumstances the teacher filed a petition purporting to be under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for taking action against the Manager for disregarding the order of the Court. The learned Single Judge, who had passed the interim order called upon the Manager to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of court for defying and disregarding the interim order of the Court.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order .of the learned Single Judge was without jurisdic tion inasmuch as the learned Judge who had passed the interim order and whose disregard was the subject matter of the contempt, him self could not have heard the case. There does not appear to be any tenability in this point. The Contempt of Courts Act by its Section 14 only permits the alleged contemner to request not to be tried by a Judge in whose presence or hearing the offence alleged had been committed. Here is not a case where the alleged act of contempt was committed in the presence or hearing of the learned Single Judge who tried the alleged contemner.