RAMA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. BENUDHAR JENA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Secretary is present in person, so also the Headmaster. It is stated by the Headmaster that he was allowed to join yesterday in the school. According to us, this has happened because of the very strict view taken by us on 15 -1 -1992, when we made clear to the Secretary who was personally present and was then being represented by Shri K. K. Swain, that if by today we would not be satisfied that he had not violated this Court's order, we would have no alternative but to award a sentence of imprisonment on him. That day itself, we were not satisfied with the replies being given by the Secretary which were contradictory to each other as noted in our order dated 15 -1 -1992. As a submission had, however, been made on that date by Shri Swain, who withdraws his appearance today, that Senior Advocate Shri B. Misra who had been engaged by the contemner would like to make his submissions today, we did not pass any final order on that day. Shri Swain has stated to us today that Shri Misra is also not appearing for the contemner.

(2.) WE have, therefore, heard the Secretary in person who has brought no document with him as desired in the order dated 15 -1 -1992; and, on being questioned, states that earlier to yesterday he had not allowed the Headmaster to join the school on being so advised by his counsel. We have not felt inclined to accept this statement. But then, as the violation of this Court's order is writ large on the face of it, and as the Secretary had not allowed the Headmaster to Join despite the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by opp. party No. 4 in the writ petition, the defiant attitude is so palpable that we have not felt inclined at all to accept the apology tendered by the Secretary today. According to us, if rule of law has to prevail and if it has to be seen that the orders of this Court and. for that matter, of any Court are respected, the Secretary deserves a deterrent punishment. We have taken this stand because we have noted with deep anguish the defiant attitude taken by the Secretary on the face of the order passed on 10 -10 -1991 by this Court on which date the Secretary had personally appeared following issuance of notice in this case, stating that the petitioner would report for duty tomorrow when he would be allowed to join this school. The conduct of the Secretary in not allowing the petitioner to join even thereafter is reprehensible. For this gross act of wilful violation of this Court's orders and to uphold the rule of law, we award imprisonment of seven days to the Secretary for his having committed the offence of civil contempt.