Ajaib Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and ors.

Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J.(Oral)

The petitioners Ajaib Sahib and 9 others, who are Teachers in the Education Department of the Punjab Government, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4254 of 1981 in this Court claiming selection grade. On 24th November, 1981, when the case CWP 4254 of 1981 came up for hearing at the motion stage, the late Shri D.S. Boparai, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, made a statement on behalf of the State Government. On the basis of his statement, the following order was passed :

"The parties are agreed that selection grade were to be allowed to JBT teachers who fell within the category of persons entitled to have them, prior to 27.10.1965. Shri Boparai, learned Deputy Advocate General, States that the Government will consider the case of each individual petitioner for the entitlement to the selection grade prior to 27.10.1965. In view of this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition. The petitioners however will be entitled to place material in support of their case before the concerned authorities.

Dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.

We hope that the Government will take a decision in this matter expeditiously."

After the decision of this civil writ petition, when for quit a long time, the respondents did not take any action to examine the entitlement of the petitioners to the Selection grade as undertaken by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Representations were made to the Deputy District Education Officer, Ludhiana by Ajaib Singh petitioner for the consideration of the matter. A notice was also issued to respondents on behalf of the petitioners by Shri S.S. Nijjar, Barristeratlaw. When the petitioners did not hear about any decision from the respondents in compliance with the undertaking contained in the order of this Court and it amounted to disobedience of the orders of this Court, the present petition was filed in May, 1983 for taking proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Shri Hardial Singh, Secretary to Government Punjab, Education Department, respondent No. 1, who succeeded Shri J.P. Gupta, filed an affidavit in response to the notice of contempt issued by this Court admitting the order dated 24th November, 1981, in CWP 4254 of 1981. In this affidavit, the Secretary narrated the facts which do not do any credit to the senior officers like respondents Nos 2 and 3, who are the Director of Public Instruction (Primary) for the State of Punjab and the Deputy District Education Officer, Ludhiana. The Secretary has averred that after the receipt of the notice from Shri S.S. Nijjar, Advocate, calling upon the State to decide expeditiously the case of the petitioners within 15 days, the Government issued instructions to Mrs. S. Madhok, the Director Public Instruction (P) Punjab to decide the matter and supply the Government with the copies of the speaking orders passed in the case of the each individual petitioner. She was instructed to reexamine the case of the petitioner and find if they were entitled to the selection grade or not. It was averred that there was no specific order of the Court which was not implemented by the Government.

Respondents Nos 2 and 3 filed affidavits which are exact copy of each other. They raised preliminary objections that no writ could be issued commanding the authority to show indulgence to the employees and a judgment of the Supreme Court was cited of defence. The (sic) of the affidavits of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is if they were contesting the main writ petition of the petitioners. No attempt was made to explain their conduct by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not deciding the matter in question in accordance with the undertaking given by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, in Court, on which order were passed. In both the affidavits the order of the Court was reproduced in the following terms :

"Dismissed as withdrawn. The case of the petitioners will be reexamined for selection grade."

In para 10 of the affidavit an attempt was made to show that the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were not entitled to the selection grade as their seniority was below serial No. 126. Nothing has been said about the cases of Petitioner Nos. 1, 9 and 10. It was further averred that the cases of petitioner No. 5 and 8 were not traceable for determination of the seniority. In reply to para No. 11 it was stated, "Denied. Their cases were duly examined and it was found that none of them is entitled for the selection grade of Rs. 120 175."

The case of respondent No. 1 i.e. Secretary Education is distinguishable from case of respondents Nos. 2 sand 3. He was impleaded as a necessary party as through him the Government was made a party. Mr. D.S. Brar Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has stated that the Secretary himself or Secretariat under his charge was not to determine the seniority, which primarily is the concern of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The correspondence which has been attached with the affidavit of respondent No. 1 and his affidavit make it abundantly clear that the Secretary of the Education Department made maximum efforts to impress upon respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the undertaking given by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, in Court. In spite of the repeated attempts by the Secretary respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 did not take any step for determination of the individual cases of the petitioners with regard to the selection grade. In order to exonerate Respondent No. 1 and prove contemptible conduct of Respondent No. 2 and 3 the extracts from the letters written by the office of Respondent No. 1, copies of which are annexed with his return are in detail reproduced hereunder.

Copy of memo No. 18(9) 9 Ed. II 81/7914 dated 31st December, 1982 :

"You are advised to table necessary action in the matter in conclusion with the Legal Remembrancer and Director, Prosecution and Litigation and Secretary to Government, Punjab. Your attention in this respect is also invited to Endorsement No. A881/29302, dated 5.12.1981 from the AdvocateGeneral, Punjab, Chandigarh, to your address. Though a period of more than one year has passed, it appears that the cases of the petitioners do not appear to have been reexamined for selection grade and necessary orders passed in terms of proceedings of Civil Writ Petition No. 4254 of 1981 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.1981. If the petitioners are not entitled to the selection grade on reexamination of their case, or their cases are otherwise time barred under the Limitation Act, they may be informed of it and speaking orders in each case be endorsed to Government for reference and record. It should be ensured that necessary action is taken promptly failing which your office will be responsible if any contempt is invited in this case."

Annexure `B'' D O No. 30/61/9Ed. II/83/6571 dated 7th September, 1983, annexed to the affidavit written from the office of the Secretary Education Department, is on the same line as the earlier one. The third reminder also in the form of D.O. No. 30/61/9Ed 11/85/7117 dated 26th September, 1983 was issued, which is Annexure `C'' on the same question. It is apparent from the affidavit of the Secretary and the correspondence annexed to his reply that no reply was attempted on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the above correspondence. In spite of insistence by the office of the Education Secretary even the copy of the written statement was not supplied to that office for the facility of the preparation of the return. Annexure `D'' copy of memo No. 30/61/9 Ed. II/83/7198 dated 3.10.1983, gives an interesting picture of the disobedience and the irresponsible defiant attitude of respondent Nos. 2 towards respondent No. 1. An extract from this letter is reproduced as under :

"The written statement duly vetted by the Advocate General, Punjab has not been received from you so far as to enable the Education Secretary to file written statement in this case keeping in view the written statement to be filed by you in this case. In fact, the written statement in this case could not be prepared unless speaking orders in the case of individual petitioners, rejecting or accepting their claim in implementing the judgment of Civil Writ Petition No. 4254 of 1981, are first issued and copies thereof are supplied to Government for reference and record. As already requested to you in D.O. Letter No. 30/61/9 Ed. II/83/7117, dated 26.9.1983, you are again requested to supply copies of the speaking orders passed by you in the case of each individual petitioner, rejecting or accepting the claim of the petitioner so as to prepare written statement on behalf of the Secretary Education Punjab, to be filed in the High Court in this case. It may be mentioned that according to the notice of Deputy Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, dated 19.8.1983, the written statement was to be filed by 28.9.1983. It could not be filed so far because you have not supplied copies of speaking orders, pased by you in the case of each individual petitioner after reexamination of his case. Therefore, copies of speaking orders, if any, passed in the case of the petitioners be supplied to Government immediately at personal level before noon today. Otherwise, you will be personally responsible for contempt of the Court and for the disciplinary proceedings for your lapses and for any delay on the part of your subordinate offices, as already informed in D.O. letter No. 36/61/9Ed II/83/7117, dated 26.9.1983."

Secretary Education was not to decide the matter himself. His office made efforts to move respondent No. 2 to decide the matter. In spite of repeated reminders, respondent No. 2 did not initiate action to comply with the orders of this Court. There is no fault of Respondent No. 1 in this case. Rule against this Respondent is therefore, discharged.

The conduct of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is manifestly an act of gross wilful disobedience of the judgment of this Court. To start with, they wanted to misrepresent the facts in the case. The orders passed by the Court on 24.11.l1981 in CWP No. 4254 of 1981 has been reproduced in para 1 of this judgment. These two respondents tried to twist and truncate the orders of this Court to mislead this Court in this contempt petition. The order which has been reproduced by them in their affidavit has been reproduced in para 4 above. It is nothing but mutilation of that order, perhaps for their advantage. I do not understand from where did they get this order which they preproduced in their affidavits. They did not say if they had got this order from the Advocate General''s office or from any body else. A copy of this contempt petition was served on them and the order dated 24th November, 1981 has been reproduced in para 10 of the petition. They did not compare these orders i.e. one which was contained in para No. 10 of this petition and the other which is reproduced by them in their returns. Those two respondents intentionally mutilated the order to get advantage in their effort of escape liability for the contempt. It is not a bona fide act on their part not to comply with the orders of this Court and reproduce the order which suits their interests. I am supported in this view by their attitude even to contest the order already passed by saying that such a writ could not be issued inspite of the fact that they knew fully well that it was issued on the statement of the Deputy Advocate General.

As is clear from the correspondence of the Secretary referred to in the earlier part of the judgment, the Secretary was insisting upon them to pass a speaking order about the entitlement of the petitioners and supply them with copies. The Secretary has exposed the respondent by saying that nothing had been done by them in the cases of the petitioners in spite of the fact that more than 11/2 years had passed between the passing of the orders and the filing of the contempt petition. Mr. Brar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab wanted to produce certain orders now stating that some borders had been passed in the case of some of the petitioners. Those were not placed on the record with the returns. Even if now some orders have been passed in the case of some of the petitioners. Those were not placed on the record with the returns. Even if now some orders have been passed those of not in any easy mitigate the conduct of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in not acting in accordance with the orders of the Court passed on the undertaking given on behalf of the State. Only one, bald assertion in para No. 11 was made that the case were decided. Nothing was said about the decision of the cases of petitioners Nos. 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10.

Another attempt was made by Shri Brar to urge that the petitioners did not supply the material about their seniority to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is not fair for Mr. Brar to raise this argument on behalf of the respondents Nos 2 and 3 because all the records are with the Government Department and the Government cannot ask its employees to furnish details about seniority and other connected matters. Nothing was to be done by the petitioners. If respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had any difficulty they could have asked the petitioners to assist and which they never did.

Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 took the matter not only casually but too carelessly. They did not act in accordance with the orders of this Court. They did not even care to listen to the directions issued by the Secretariat to decide the matter expeditiously. Both these respondents even did not respond to the correspondence of the Secretariat. I draw this inference from the fact that nowhere it has been stated that the correspondence was attended to by these respondents or some body on their behalf. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 nowhere in their affidavits have shown any regrets etc for their careless and indifference attitude towards the orders of this Court which was passed on the basis of the undertaking given by Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Such Officers who do not care for the undertaking of the Government, the orders of the Court and the orders of the highest officers in the Secretariatincharges of the department, do not require to be treated leniently. They have deliberately avoided the compliance of the orders. Mr. Brar request for time so that he could produce these officers for being reprimanded. The penalty suggested by him is too lenient. Such lenient attitude if shown, is likely to embolden the employees and encourage indiscipline.

For the foregoing reasons, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are guilty for commission of Civil Contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and are liable for punishment under Section 12 of the same Act. Mrs. S. Madhok, Director Public Instruction (P) respondent No. 2 and Shri Kidar Nath Sharma, Deputy District Education Officer, Ludhianarespondent No. 3, are, therefore, convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each. If the fine is not paid or deposited within a fortnight, they shall be detained in civil prison for a period of seven days to serve out the sentence.