Pushpendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. orders.j. mukhopadhaya, j.1. the petitioner, who was posted in the primary health centre, tarpa, ranch! as assistant, was suspended on 4th august, 2000. he having continued under suspension without any initiation of departmental proceeding, challenged the order of suspension on 27th february, 2003 before this court after serving a copy of the writ petition on the counsel for the state. though more than three years have passed after service of copy, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.2. counsel for the respondents submitted that the standing counsel has received statement of fact in the form of counter affidavit, a copy of which has been produced.3. from the enclosure attached to the statement of fact, they have suggested that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance. it has not been disputed that the petitioner is under suspension for about 6-1/2 years and there is nothing on the record to suggest that any charge-sheet has been issued.4. in the facts and circumstances, this court has no other option but to set aside the order of suspension dated 4th august, 2000. the petitioner stands reinstated to his post and direction is given to the respondents to issue a notification of posting in regard to petitioner.5. it will be open to the respondents to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet within six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, failing which they will pay the full salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid.6. this writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioner, who was posted in the Primary Health Centre, Tarpa, Ranch! as Assistant, was suspended on 4th August, 2000. He having continued under suspension without any initiation of departmental proceeding, challenged the order of suspension on 27th February, 2003 before this Court after serving a copy of the writ petition on the counsel for the State. Though more than three years have passed after service of copy, no affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the standing counsel has received statement of fact in the form of counter affidavit, a copy of which has been produced.

3. From the enclosure attached to the statement of fact, they have suggested that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is under suspension for about 6-1/2 years and there is nothing on the record to suggest that any charge-sheet has been Issued.

4. In the facts and circumstances, this Court has no other option but to set aside the order of suspension dated 4th August, 2000. The petitioner stands reinstated to his post and direction is given to the respondents to issue a notification of posting in regard to petitioner.

5. It will be open to the respondents to Initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet within six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, failing which they will pay the full salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid.

6. This writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.