Chittaranjan Mondal @APPELLANT@Hash Mokbul Hossain & ors

None appears on behalf of the respondents as also the writ petitioner in spite of service of this application and the Memorandum of Appeal upon them.

No accommodation is prayed for. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

This is an application arising out of an appeal preferred under Section 19(1)(A) of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971.

The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order of punishment passed against the appellant who was working for gain as a Teacher-In-

Charge of Dodhikotbari Ashrafia High Madrasah, Village and Post Office Dodhikotbari, P.S. Hemtabad, District Uttar Dinajpur.

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent no.1 in the matter of Mokbul Hossain Vs. State & Ors. (In re:

W.P.30723(W) of 2016).

An order dated December 30, 2016 was passed in the above writ application directing the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.),Uttar Dinajpur to take a

decision on approving the life membership of the respondent no. 1 as a member of the managing committee of the Madrasah under reference by

applying the provisions of Rule 6(c) of the notification bearing no. 906-SE(S) dated July 5, 2002 governing Madrasah Education in the State. It was

further directed by the above order that the electoral process connected to the Constitution of the managing committee under reference, which had

been scheduled to be held on December 30, 2016 would remain stayed in the interregnum awaiting of the decision of the District Inspector of Schools

(S.E.) Uttar Dinajpur. There was, however, further direction that the electoral process should revive at the end of the period of three weeks granted

to the District Inspector of Schools concerned from the date of communication of the above order.

An application under the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 was filed by the respondent no.1 alleging willful disobedience of the above order dated

December 30, 2016 by the appellant as also one Sri Sadananda Roy, who had been working for gain in the Madrasah under reference in the post of

Group “Dâ€​ (Peon) there.

It was disclosed in the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the appellant in connection with the above application filed under the Contempt of

Court’s Act, 1971 that he had no knowledge about the order dated December 30, 2016 passed in the writ application, prior to service of the copy

of the writ application on January 7, 2017 from the office of the District Inspector of Schools concerned. It was categorically stated in the above

affidavit in opposition that the aforesaid Sri Sadananda Roy, the alleged contemner no.2, was not authorized to receive any communication which had

been made to him, nor he was authorized to use official seal of the designation of the appellant in acknowledgement of any communication addressed

to him. So, according to him, there was no willful disobedience on his part of the order dated December 30, 2016 passed in the writ application.

In the affidavit in opposition to the above application filed under the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971, it was disclosed by the alleged contemner no.

2, namely, Sri Sadananda Roy, that the respondent no.1 was a person, who was personally known to him and relying upon the oral statement made by

the respondent no.1 that the order had been communicated to the appellant/alleged contemner no.1 verbally, he received the above communication.

According to him, he could not hand over the communication to the appellant, the alleged contemner no.1, due to intervening holidays as also his

subsequent absence in his duty consequent upon illness of his wife. It has been further disclosed in the above affidavit that in a subsequent meeting

conducted by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on January 17, 2017, the grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner was redressed

complying the order dated December 30, 2016 passed in the writ application. The name of the petitioner was included in the managing committee as a

life member.

Heard Mr. Kamalesh Bhattachary, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant as also after considering the facts and circumstances of

this case, we find that no material was made available before the learned Single Judge in support of the allegations made by the respondents with

regard to willful disobedience of the order dated December 30, 2016 passed in the writ application.

In absence of any material in support of the allegation that the order passed in the writ application on December 30, 2016 was well within the

knowledge of the appellant, he should not have been held guilty for committing Contempt of Court by violating the aforesaid order passed in the writ

application.

Though we find from the order impugned in this appeal that according to the learned Single Judge the order passed in the writ application was within

the knowledge of the alleged contemner no.2, namely, Sri Sadananda Roy, he stood like “Casabianca on the burning deckâ€, faithfully following the

orders in his role of a Group-D (Peon) and sacrificing his valuable casual leave due to him, we do not find any supporting material to the above

conclusion wrote by the learned single judge.

It will not be out of context to observe here that this appeal has not been preferred by the alleged contemner no.2, namely, Sri Sadananda Roy, and we

are not interfering with the order of punishment passed against him by the learned Single Judge.

So far as the decision of Sarafatullah & Ors. Vs. S.M. Moitra & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1952 SC 919 is concerned, we do not find the above decision

in the All India Reporter of the concerned year, i.e. 1952.

In view of discussions and observations made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the appellant was not guilty of willful disobedience of

the order passed in the writ application. The order impugned to this appeal is liable to be set aside so far as the order of punishment of the appellant is

concerned.

Since nothing further remains to be considered in this appeal, this appeal stands disposed of accordingly along with the application by quashing and

setting aside the order impugned to this appeal so far as the punishment passed against the appellant is concerned.

There will be however no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.