(1) This is a rule against respondents No. 3 and 4/contemeners herein issued by this Court for disregarding and disobeying the order dated 4.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2344/2013 (K.R. Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1915 ( hereinafter referred to as âthe Act, 1915) read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(2) In the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court directed on 4.10.2013 that if the amount of Rs. 90,259/- forfeited from the account under Group Insurance Scheme has not been disbursed, the same shall not be disbursed during pendency of appeal and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal within the period of three months. In the said writ petition, the State of Chhattisgarh, appellate authority and the Commissioner, Directorate of Public Instructions were impleaded as party respondents. The District Education Officer and the Principal of Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Nariyara were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition.
(3) The order complained of was passed on 4.10.2013 and before the passing of that order; by order dated 3.10.2013, the District Education Officer, Jangir directed the Principal of the Government Higher Secondery School, Nariyara to deposit the said amount into the accounts of the concerned teachers and it was actually deposited on 11.10.2013.
(4) The order complained of dated 4.10.2013 was sent to the Director, Public Instructions with a copy to District Education Officer but it has not been shown that copy of the order in question was actually served to the District Education Officer.
(5) The contempt petitioner has filed this contempt petition under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India on 24.02.2014 complaining that the amount in question has been disbursed by respondents No. 3 and 4/contemnors herein and appeal has not been decided within the stipulated period and, thus, the order complained of has been willfully disobeyed and disregarded by respondents No. 3 and 4/contemnors and, therefore, contempt proceedings be initiated against them and they deserves to be punished accordingly.
(6) On rule being issued, respondents No. 3 and 4/contemner have filed their counter affidavit stating inter alia that they were neither party-respondents in the writ petition nor they were communicated with the copy of order in question, which is apparent from Annexure C-4, by which copy was simply sent to the Director, Public Instructions on 21.10.2013 whereas the amount in question has already been disbursed on 11.10.2013; and the appeal has already been decided by the State Government on 6.5.2014 vide Annexure R-3/4 and, as such, rule issued deserves to be discharged.
(7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein with utmost circumspection.
(8) It is well settled that before a proceeding for contempt can succeed. It is of paramount importance to establish first, the service of the order of the Court said to have been disobeyed upon the person alleged to have committed contempt thereof, secondly the precise act of contempt, thirdly the precise responsibility of the contemnor in the act of contempt and fourthly the date of the alleged contempt being subsequent to the service of the order said to have been disobeyed. These are the four indispensable requisites and failure to establish any one of them must mean dismissal of the petition for contempt.
(9) In Hoshiar Singh and another Vs. Gurbachan Singh and others [AIR 1962 SC 1089], their Lordships of Supreme Court has authoratively held that judgment or order should be served on the party against whom the order is granted and person cannot be held guilty of the contempt, if the order is not served to him and he had no knowledge about the order, it said to have been disobeyed and summarized the legal position as under:-
âThe judgment or order should be served on the party personally, except in the following cases: (1) prohibitive orders, the drawing up of which is not completed; (2) orders embodying an undertaking to do an act by a named day; (3) orders to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents; (4) where an order for substituted service has been made; (5) where the respondent has evaded service of the orderâ¦â¦â¦..
In order to justify committal for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted, if it be proved that he had notice of the order aliunde, as by telegram, or newspaper, report, or otherwise, and knew that it was intended to be enforced, or if he consented to the order, or if he was present in Court when the order was pronounced, or when the motion was made, although he left before the order was pronounced.
The question of obedience or disobedience arises only after the party knows of the order and if the party does not know of the order and if the party does not know the order, no such question can arise.
(10) In The Aligarh Municipal Board and others Vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others [AIR 1970 SC 1767], the Supreme Court has categorically held that in order to charge of contempt of Court for disobeying its order, the complainant must prove that contemnors had knowledge of the order complained of beyond reasonable doubt. Paragraph eight of the report states as under:-
â8â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦In order to bring home a charge of contempt of court for disobeying orders of Courts those who assert that the alleged contemnors had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. As observed earlier it is of course not necessary to prove formal service of the order by official routine and knowledge of the exact order aliunde would suffice. In case of doubt, however, benefit ought to go to the person charged.â
(11) Thus, in light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that proceedings in the contempt are nature of quasi judicial proceeding, it must be proved beyond doubt that the contemnors had knowledge of order passed by the Court to bring home the charge of contempt under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(12) If the facts of the case are examined in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases, it is quite apparent that respondents No. 3 and 4 - contemnors herein had no knowledge about the order complained of dated 4.10.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2344/2013 (K.R. Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) as they were not made parties in the writ petition and the contempt petitioner did not communicate the said order to the respondents No. 3 and 4/contemnors as the order dated 4.10.2013 was for the first time shown to have communicated to the Director, Public Instructions on 21.10.2013; and copy was endorsed to the District Education Officer, Janjgir-Champa; and prior to this date, District Education Officer, by its order dated 03.10.2013, already directed to deposit the amount in dispute and the amount was deposited in the account of teachers concerned on 11.10.2013 i.e. much before the date of order was communicated by the petitioner to the Director, Public Instructions and there is no other evidence has been brought on record to prove that either respondents No. 3 and 4/contemners had knowledge of the order complained of or it was actually communicated to them, which is said to have been disobeyed by the contemnors herein.
(13) Thus, it is held that that contempt petitioner has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that respondents No. 3 and 4 had actual knowledge of order passed by this Court on 4.10.2013 as they were neither party to the writ petition nor they were served with that order and even before communication on 21.10.2013 to the Higher Officers of the State Government, the amount in question has already been disbursed to the concerned person and, therefore, it cannot be held that there is willful disobedience by the respondents No. 3 and 4 of the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by this Court. Apart from this, appeal in question has already been decided on 6.5.2014 by the State Government.
(14) Concludingly, it is held that respondents No. 3 and 4 have not willfully and deliberately disobeyed he order passed by this Court dated 4.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2344/2013 (K.R. Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) warranting punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.
(15) Resultantly, the rule issued on 3.3.2014 is hereby discharged and the contempt petition against the respondents No. 3 and 4 are hereby dropped. No cost (s).