S K SAHA Vs. GOKUL CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('Act' for short) is directed against the judgment and order dt. Mar., 28, 1978 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court holding the two appellants guilty of civil contempt. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as under.

(2.) Gokul Chandra Dhara, the respondent herein was, at all material times, an employee in the Post and Telegraph Department. He was confirmed in the post of an Inspector in the Railway Mail Service (R.M.S.) by an order dt. Sept. 18, 1972 passed by the Director of Postal Services (R.M.S.) West Bengal Circle, Calcutta; and thereafter by an order dt, July 18, 1974 he was promoted, on a temporary basis, to the post of an Assistant Superintendent of R.M.S. On or about Mar. 17, 1975 the respondents, while on leave, was served with a memorandum dt. Mar. 14,1975 issued by Sri S. K. Saha, Senior Superintendent of the Calcutta R.M.S. Division (the appellant 1 herein), intimating that pursuant to an order passed by Sri Nirmal Kumar Verma, Director of Postal Services (R.M.S.) West Bengal Circle (the appellant No. 2 herein) on Mar. 10, 1975 he (the respondent) was reverted to the post of Inspector, R.M.S. and was transferred to Howrah R.M.S. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent made a number of representations to the higher authorities for its revocation but failed. The respondent then moved an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before a learned Judge of this Court challenging the order dt. Mar. 10,1975 and praying for appropriate writs for its annulment. On that application a Rule nisi was issued on Sept. 17,1975 and an order was passed for maintaining status quo as on that date, till disposal of the Rule. The learned Advocate for the respondent communicated the said order to all the opposite parties to the said application, including the two appellants herein, for information and compliance.

(3.) Alleging wilful disobedience of and non-compliance with the said order by not allowing him to join the post of Assistant Superintendent (R.M.S.) the respondents filed an application for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties in the said Rule. On that application a Rule Nisi for contempt was issued by the learned single Judge who had issued the earlier Rule and passed the interim order. After hearing the parties the learned Judge made the Rule absolute against the two appellants and ordered them to pay a lump sum of Rs. 5,000/-io the respondent, with a direction that the said amount would be adjusted from the sums payable to him. Hence this appeal.