Basudeo Ram Vs. the 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. - 770 dated 28th april, 2007 and it was alleged in the said order that the petitioner was found absent from the 6chool and it was complained that the meal was not being distributed.narendra nath tiwari, j.1. the petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the office order under memo no. 770 dated 28th april, 2007 (annexure-3), whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension on the allegation of absence from duty. he has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension/and full salary.2. the petitioner is at present posted as assistant teacher in middle school, harladih, block pirtand, district giridih. it has been stated that the petitioner has is at the last stage of his service career and is due to retire on 31st july, 2008. it has been stated that suddenly the petitioner was stopped from working on the ground that he was put under suspension and even the order of suspension was not made available to him. ultimately, the petitioner had to take resort of the provision of the right to information act for obtaining the copy of the suspension order. the petitioner, thereafter, came to know that he was put under suspension on the allegation that he was found absent during 'school chale ham campaign 2007'. the petitioner has contended that the order of suspension is wholly illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.3. it has been submitted that an employee can be put under suspension only during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding or in contemplation of the departmental proceeding, but there has been neither any departmental proceeding nor criminal proceeding and as such, the order of suspension, being based on no valid ground, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. it has further been submitted that even the petitioner has not been given subsistence allowance of the suspension period and he has been kept under suspension for more than one year and no order has been passed till date, revoking the suspension or otherwise.4. the respondents have contested the petitioner's claim. learned j.c. to g.p.i appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension, as he was found absent during 'school chalen ham campaign 2007' by the secretary, road construction department, and as such the order of suspension is not arbitrary or illegal. it has been submitted that though the instruction was sought as far back as on 29.10.2007 from district superintendent, of education, giridih, but till date, he did not turn up to file counter affidavit.5. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record.6. from annexure-3, it is evident that the petitioner was put under suspension by the order of the district superintendent of education, giridih vide his memo no. 770 dated 28th april, 2007 and it was alleged in the said order that the petitioner was found absent from the 6chool and it was complained that the meal was not being distributed. in the said order, it was also mentioned that the petitioner will get the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and prapatra-ka shall be issued separately.7. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was not even served on the petitioner and the petitioner was not paid even the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. no departmental proceeding has been initiated till date, though the petitioner has been put under suspension for more than a year. learned counsel submitted that an employee can be put under suspension only during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or any criminal proceeding or in contemplation thereof, but even after lapse of more than one year, there has been no trace of any departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding against the petitioner, and there was no basis for the issuance of the impugned order, and the same is wholly illegal and arbitrary. it has been submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on 31st july, 2008 and if the impugned order is not quashed and the petitioner's suspension is not revoked, he shall be put to a great to prejudice and he will not be able to get his retiral benefits properly.8. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the said factual contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.9. considering the above and also considering that more than one year has been elapsed and the petitioner has not been proceeded against departmentally, or otherwise the suspension order appears to be issued arbitrarily without any reasonable, ground, as required under the law for putting an employee under suspension. this writ petition has been filed in 2007 and till date, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and they have not denied the factual statement made by the petitioner. i, therefore, find no ground on which the impugned order can be allowed to sustain. this writ petition is, thus, allowed. the impugned order dated 28th april, 2007 (annexure-3) is hereby. quashed.10. it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to get his salary for the intervening period without any break and if any amount of subsistence allowance is paid to the petitioner, the same shall be deducted from the amount of salary.