HARICHARAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for contempt alleging non compliance of the order dated 22.2.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3148 of 2007 , whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent -Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to consider the application of the petitioner in its right perspective and decide his claim by a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The aforesaid order was passed in the writ petition, wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of his termination on the ground that although he had been acquitted of an offence under Section 302 IPC, he was not reinstated in the service of the respondents and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, as already indicated hereinbefore, directing the respondent to consider his representation in accordance with law. It could be gathered from the arguments of the counsel for the respective parties that the petitioner although was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, he was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and was released on the basis of the period of sentence having already undergone by him. In addition, he was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/ -to the widow of the deceased. A departmental proceeding, therefore, was initiated against the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of his conviction under Section 323 and Section 302 IPC and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He, therefore, has filed this contempt application that his representation was not considered in the right perspective and the respondent has committed contempt of Court by not reinstating him in service.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the petitioner having been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, had acquired a legal right of reinstatement, especially when other similarly situated persons were reinstated.

(3.) THE petitioner having been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and punishment of fine was also imposed on him, it is difficult to hold that he had a right of reinstatement and that the respondent committed an error by not deciding the representation in the right perspective. Besides this the correctness of the order passed on the representation cannot be legally adjudicated by entertaining a contempt petition. It cannot be over looked that a case for contempt is not made out against the respondent since the representation of the petitioner has already been decided although adversely and merely because he was not reinstated in the service on account of his conviction under Section 323 IPC , it cannot give rise to a cause to initiate a contempt proceeding.