SRIHARI CHARAN SENAPATI Vs. PADMA LOCHAN PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) The contemner, Shri Joy Prakash Maity, holding the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools (SE), Cental Sub-Division District - Purba Medinipore is present today before this Court. In answer to the contempt application, a compliance report was filed detailing the steps as taken by the said officer in pursuance of the order dated 16th March, 2004 to reconstitute of the Managing Committee. It appears that in the compliance report nothing has been said about the completion of the election office bearers save and except a plea that for unavoidable reason the matter could not be completed and thereby the contemner has tendered unconditional apology. From the records it appears that due to the fact that the reconstitution of the Managing Committee was long pending, the Court by the judgment dated 16th March, 2004 directed the respondents to place the departmental nominee within two weeks from that date. Office bearer election also was directed to be completed within the stipulated period as per statute after placement of such nominee. The administrator, the present contemner was directed to handover the charge to the Secretary of the Managing Committee after holding such office bearer election. Though the departmental nominee was placed on 8th April, 2004 and under the statute namely Management Rules, 1969 the election of office bearer was required to be completed within 15th days from the date of placement of nominee, here in this case on or before 23rd April, 2004, but no notice of holding office bearer election was issued by the present contemner within that period. Ultimately, the contempt application was moved when by the order dated 7th July, 2004, a Rule was issued. In the Contempt Rule, the present contemner appeared when he was further directed to completet the election of office bearers without prejudice to the issue involved in the contempt application. But despite such, nothing was done in terms of the order dated 21st July, 2004 save and except convening of a meeting for office bearers election fixing the date on 19th August, 2004, that is also after lapse of two weeks time as was allowed in terms of the order dated 21st July, 2004 in the contempt proceeding. Ultimately, on that date office bearer election could not be completed due to lack of quorum as submitted in the affidavit in the form of compliance report as filed by Shri Maity. Normal procedure that due to lack of quorum if any meeting is adjourned, the same to be convened on the next date when there is no necessity of further quorum. However, the present contemner did not take that steps also.

(3.) On the aforesaid situation as the reconstitution of the Managing Committee was very urgent, the Court discharged the Administrator and appointed the District Inspector of Schools concerned as administrator to complete the office bearer election by holding an urgent meeting by passing an order to that effect on 27th August, 2004. In pursuance thereof now the office bearer election has been completed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on 10th September, 2004 and the charge has been handed over to the newly elected Managing Committee. The contemner, Shri Maity is not a lay man, who is holding the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools (SE) Contai Sub-Division. His conduct not to complete the office bearer election despite the fact that on 8th April, 2004 the departmental nominee was placed is now the subject matter of the contempt issue. Initially, by the Judgment dated 16th March, 2004, time to complete the office bearer election was fixed by two weeks from the date of placement of departmental nominee. Such time expired on 23rd April, 2004. From the affidavit of the contempt application it appears that no answer has been given as to why since 23rd April, 2004 till the further order dated 21st July, 2004 as passed in the contempt application, no steps were taken by that gentleman to complete the office bearer election. Even on the extended time by the order as passed in the Contempt Rule, no meeting was held and no steps were taken to convene such meeting. Hence, it appears and proved from the documents on records that Shri Malty deliberately and willfully did not comply with the Court's order as originally passed on 16th March, 2004 by convening the office bearer election to complete such election and thereafter even when by the order passed in the Contempt Rule dated 21st July, 2004 further time was granted. No answer has been given to such action by which he delayed the entire process. This Court accordingly holds that the conduct of Shri Maity is deliberate and willful in total disregard of the order of this Court. Shri Maity is holding the post under the State Government being an appointee in the Education Department. Government employee's contumacious conduct is indeed heinous since it sets a bad example to the common man vis-a-vis respect due to Court of justice. This point has been considered by the Apex Court passed in the case Gurucharan Das v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1418, relying upon which Calcutta High Court also passed a judgment in the case Rabindra Nath Biswas, Head Surveyor (Retd.) v. B.C.Mookerjee, Secretary, Department of Land and Land Reforms, Government of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1988(1) CHN 239. The Government employees should be dealt with strictly in the contempt jurisdiction otherwise the Rule of law could not be established and as a resultant effect the democratic ethos of our country would be jeopardized. It is a fit case to apply the said principle.