Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6342 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Kanak Lata Tripathi Opposite Party :- Shri. K. Vijayendra Pandiyan, D.M.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
By order dated 7.8.2019 passed in Writ A No. 26327 of 2018 filed by the applicant, the Court directed as under:
" 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. From perusal of the record of the writ petition it is clear that the petitioner was initially appointed /engaged on the post of Vidhi Sah Parivicha Adhikari by the District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur on fix wages vide letter of appointment dated 30.04.2013. Subsequently, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and the petitioner received her wages without any break whatsoever. A report dated 07.08.2018 was submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur and on the said report itself a signature was made by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on the same day by which the permission was granted by him for the termination of services of the petitioner. The District Magistrate is competent authority to pass the orders for termination but in the present case no written order whatsoever has been passed by him and only on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur, he put his signatures which is clear from the perusal of Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.
12. Further from perusal of the report dated 07.08.2018 it is clear that large number of allegations were made against the petitioner, as such the order becomes stigmatic in nature and as such in view of the settled principles of law, inquiry was liable to be conducted in presence of the petitioner which is missing in the present case.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ji Misra vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. And others reported in 2010 (125) FLR page 441, held that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, reported in (1993) 3 SCC page 259 was also taken into consideration in the aforesaid case. The Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav (Supra) laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14.
14. In the case of Nisha Devi vs. State of H.P. And others reported in [2014 (141) FLR page 622] it was held by the Supreme Court that the principle of audi alteram partem admits of no exception, and demands to be adhered to in all circumstances. It was further held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that any decision which has serious implications and consequences to any person, such person must be heard in his defence.
15. In view of above, the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1/ District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Petitioner is also entitled for consequential benefits.
16. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is allowed.
17. However liberty is reserved to the opposite party to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they so advised."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Jaswant