B.K. RAO & ORS. Vs. PRITHWISH KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an order dated 3rd of March, 1987, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in a Contempt proceeding.

(2.) In the year 1975 Sri Pritwish Kar moved an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia that the respondents be commanded by a writ of Mandamus, in not taking into consideration any of the adverse remarks made against the writ petitioner in the years 1971, 1972 1 and 1974 to expunge the said adverse remarks from the service records of the writ petitioner and by confirming him in the post of Director together with a prayer commanding the respondents not to affect the seniority of the petitioner in the gradation list nor to confirm any other incumbent to the post of Director in derogation to the interest of the petitioner. The learned Judge made the Rule absolute in terms of both the prayers. In an application contending that the respondents had wilfully and deliberately violated the order passed by the learned Judge on 28th June, 1984, the contempt proceedings was initiated. The said order recorded in the first paragraph that all the contemners were personally present in court and they undertook to carry out the order to be passed by the learned Judge on that day subsequently. A serious dispute arose with regard thereto inasmuch as the appellants before this Court contended that neither they were present in Court at that time, nor did they give any undertaking to court that they would abide by the order to be passed by the learned Judge. The appellants/respondents were Sri B.K. Rao, IAS, Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Mines, Ministry of Steel Mines & Coal, Sri S.K. Mukherjee, Director General, Geological Survey of India, Sri D.P. Dhoundial, Senior Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Sri N.K. Mukherjee, Senior Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Sri A. Kushari, Director (Personnel) Geological Survey of India and Sri Jagdish Lal, Director, Geological Survey of India. They being highly responsible officers affirmed an affidavit to the effect that they did not give such an undertaking either personally or through the learned lawyer Sri Soumen Bose, a senior advocate who appeared on their behalf. At the instance of the parties Mr. Bose personally appeared and submitted before this Court that he did not have the instruction from his clients to give such undertaking. The learned Judge in the order itself observed that in any event there was a clear case of violation of the Court's order final the respondents had undertaken to carry out any direction given by the Court.

(3.) The present appellants, the alleged contemners were not parties to the main rule. The appellant nos. 1 to 6 had assumed office long after the said order was passed, as such there was no direction on them personally to comply with the order which was passed in the main rule,