SHISH PAL & ORS. Vs. ARUN KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Civil Writ Petition No. 4652 of 1990 the Division Bench on April 5, 1990 passed order to the effect that the petitioners were seeking regularisation of their services on the basis of Piara Singh's case [1988 (4) SLR 739] without making any representation and that they should make such representation, which will be decided within six months thereof. Status quo reservces of the petitioners shall continue from the date of receipt of representation.

(2.) The allegation is that the petitioners on that very day approached the respondent, Sh. Arun Kumar Sood, Executive Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board, Kaithal at about 3 P.M. who refused to receive copy of the order of the High Court. On the following day also when certified copy was obtained and sought to be produced, the respondent again refused to accept it. He asked the petitioners to wait till 5 P.M. In the meantime, he is alleged to have passed the order, terminating the services of the petitioners and thus violated the order passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition. Notice of the petition had been issued and a reply thereto was filed by the respondent inter alia controverting the allegations of the petitioners that they had approached him and made him aware of the order passed by the High Court on 5th and 6th April, 1988. Since there was a disputed question raised between the parties, vide order dated May 28, 1990 the matter was referred to the District Judge, Kurukshetra to make a report after allowing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. A detailed report has been submitted by the District Judge, which is dated August 11, 1990. It is reported that the allegations of the petitioners regarding approaching respondent on 5th and 6th April, 1988 were not established, however, another fact was noticed in the report that a telegram was produced in the office of the respondent purporting to have been given by Raj Deep Singh Tacoria, Advocate, High Court, Chandigarh, informing that status quo had been granted by the High Court regarding terminating the services of Shish Pal, Bhim Sain, Nan Lal, Balwant Singh and Ranbir Singh and in evidence produced the receipt clerk, who stated that the telegram was received at 9.15 A.M. on April 6, 1990. According to the receipt clerk, the telegram was brought to the notice of the respondent at that very moment.

(3.) Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent while challenging the report of the District Judge on the question of receipt of telegram, had argued that this fact was not pleaded in the Contempt Petition and no evidence could be produced before the District Judge. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. The receipt clerk was cross-examined on behalf of the respondent and if there was any manipulation in the receipt register regarding insertion of this telegram the matter could have been brought on the face. It was on the basis of evidence produced by the petitioners it was held that the office of the respondent was aware of the order passed by the High Court well in time before the respondent chose to pass the order terminating the services of the petitioners.