PRAKASH WATHAR Vs. SADHANA SHASHIKANT WAIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Assistant Director, Ayurved Department, is a Government servant, who is working under the Director of Ayurved, and who in turn works under the control and supervision of the Director and secretary, Medical Education and Research. He has approached this Court by filing the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28-3-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt petition filed by the respondents against the appellant complaining against him that he was guilty of committing contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the orders dated 20-12-2002 and 23-2-2003. The learned Judge was pleased to find the appellant guilty of committing contempt of the Court by wilfully disobeying the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in writ petition, which was filed by the respondents. The learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and impose sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE respondents-petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court seeking relief of payment of their salaries from the month of June to August 2002. After hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to pass order on 20-12-2002 directing the Management and Department to pay the salaries to the said respondents petitioners. It appears that the management was to deposit 10% of the share of the salaries of respondents-petitioners in the Salary Account and the Government was to deposit 90% of the share of the salary for the month of June to August 2002. It further appears that the Government had deposited its 90% share of the salary for the said period in the joint account of the salaries of the employees. It further appears that the salary of the employees for the period of August 2002 could not be paid as the Provident Fund commissioner had withdrawn the amount to the tune of Rs. 12,29,873/-from the said salary account of the employees. On account of this unexpected contingency, it appears that the salaries of the respondents-petitioners for the said period could not be paid. It further appears that the appellant had specifically mentioned in his letter dated 17-3-2003 addressed to the principal of the college requiring the management to repay the said amount in the salary account for payment of the employees for the month of August 2002. The appellant has also narrated all the subsequent events, which need not be recorded here.

(3.) FROM the details given by the appellant, it is crystal clear that the appellant had no wilful intention to disobey the orders passed by this Court. We have closely examined the entire record and pleadings of the parties. We do not find that there was conscious effort or attempt oh the part of the appellant to disobey the orders passed by this Court. We must bear in mind a crucial aspect in the chain of the administration that there is close interdependence inter se from the lower layer or rung of the administration to the highest level or rung of the administration and no one in the chain can be isolated to be held responsible for any lapse in the process. We also cannot forget that stately elephant moves very slowly and as the files have to undergo the journey from table to table, it takes its own speed and time to reach the destination. When we say so, we are not condoning and deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to indulge into red tapism and laxity in the work. Even in the best and efficient administration, the movement of file from one rung of administration to the next rung of the administration till it reaches the decision making authority, it takes its own time. Even in such administration, there is no magic button to be pushed to get desired results. In the present case, the appellant himself was subordinate to his many superior officers in the administration. It is not that he had the key of the treasury and he could pay himself the salaries to the respondent-petitioners at the moment this Court had passed the orders. It does appear from the record that as soon as this Court had passed the order on 20th December, 2002, 90% share of the State Government was deposited in the salary account of the employees. It was the liability of the management to deposit 10% share, so that the whole salary of the employees could be disbursed. Since there was delay and lapse on the part of the management to deposit 10% share of the salaries of the employees, the respondents could not be paid as per the orders passed by this Court. Meanwhile, a very strange, unforeseen and unexpected event occurred. The Provident Fund Commissioner had withdrawn a very large chunk of the amount from the salary accounts of the employees towards the claim of the Provident Fund. This abrupt withdrawal of the amount from the account created a big problem for the administration and, particularly, for the appellant. We cannot tell the appellant or any of the officers in the administration that do whatever you want to, but he must obey the orders passed by this court, particularly, the payment of salaries from the Government coffers. No individual can touch the Government funds. There are Administrative Rules for withdrawal of even a small amount from the Government Treasury. The appellant had made conscious efforts by requiring diversion of an amount to the tune of Rs. 16,75,833/- to be able to pay of the salaries of the employees. It, therefore, cannot be said that the appellant had any mens rea or intention to disobey the orders of the Court deliberately and wilfully. In the Memo of appeal, he has extensively referred to what steps he had taken to obey the orders passed by this Court. We, are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant is not guilty of contempt of Court, as it cannot be said that he had deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. It is true that in the circumstances explained by him in the Memo of Appeal, which we have summarized hereinabove, it was not possible to pay the salaries of the respond-ents-petitioners as per the orders of this Court. It is crystal clear from the facts narrated and disclosed by the appellant that it was simply beyond his control to augment the funds in the salary accounts to be able to pay the salaries of the respondent-petitioners so that the orders passed by this Court could be complied with. The appellant has fully satisfied us that he had no deliberate and wilful intention to disobey the orders passed by this Court and he had made all conscious efforts to augment funds in the salary accounts not enable himself to pay their salaries, as per the orders passed by this court. In our considered opinion, the appellant is not guilty of committing contempt of Court within the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The appellant has fully explained all the events which clearly establish that he is merely a helpless chain in the entire administration, and it was simply beyond his control to obey the orders passed by this Court. In the case of (Niaz Mohammad and others v. State of haryana and others), reported in 1994 (6) S. C. C. 332, the Supreme Court has observed as under: