PRITAM PAL Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Mr. Pritam Pal Dhingra is a practicing Advocate in the High Court of Madbya Pradesh at Jahalpur, having joined the Bar on 4.2.1979. Earlier to joining the Bar, he was serving in the Army and retired on 23.12.65. Thereafter, he was re -employed in the Defence Accounts; Department on 7.2.19h6 as U.D.C. (Auditor). On 29.2.76, the appellant served three months' notice of resignation upon the departmental authorities for the reasons mentioned in the said notice and also requested to pay him the contributory provident fund benefits for his 10 years service though the date of his superannuation in the said post was 30.9.1986. The Department not only refused to accept his resignation hut also did not relieve him even after the expiry of three months. According to the appellant, there was neither any departmental enquiry pending nor contemplated against him during those three months i.e. between 29.2.76 and 31.5.76. However, a charge sheet dated 21.12.76 for imposing a major penalty on a complaint by it. C.D.A. Vehick Factory was served on him to which he submitted his written statement. Then he served a final quit notice w.e.f. 8.1.77. Though on the has is of the show cause notice, an enquiry was started, nothing came out of it. Therefore, the appellant moved the High Court of Madbya Pradesh at Jahalpur by filing Writ Petition M.P. No. 786 of 1978 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sworn on 27.11.78 requesting several prayers inclusive of issuance of directions to the respondent therein (the departmental authorities) to accept his resignation so as to enable him to take any other profession of his liking and to declare the retention of his service against his will after 31.5.1976 as illegal and malafide and to re -imburse pay and allowances for the period of this enforced absence after the expiry of three months notice period etc. The High Court issued show cause notice to the respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition. The respondent No.3 thereafter accepted the resignation dated 29.2.76 of the appellant w.e.f. 15.1.79 by which time the appellant claims to have completed 31 years of combined military and civil service i.e. from 29.11.47 to 15.1. 79. Meanwhile, the departmental enquiry initiated against him was dropped. Then the appellant submitted supplemental applications praying that his resignation should be converted into one of voluntary retirement and that his military services should be counted with civil service and that he should be given all service benefits like pension, gratuity etc. as well as consequential benefits on account of the delay in acceptance of his resignation. Two applications being I.A. No. 908/79 and I.A. No. 4246/78 were filed by the appellant, they being one for amendment of the petition and the other for taking some additional grounds. Both applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court comprising of Mr. Justice J .S. Verma (as he then was) and Mr. Justice U.N. Bachawat, as the counsel for the respondents had no objection and granted one week time for incorporating the amendments in the petition. At the request of the counsel for the respondent, Shri R.P. Sinha, the Court granted two weeks time to file the additional return by order dated 16.3.79. The case was listed for further hearing on 2.4.79 on which date the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant then on 16.4.79 moved an application to review the order dated 2.4.79. The application was registered as M .c.c. No. 209 of 1979. This application was too dismissed on 23.4.79 with the following observation:

(2.) ON being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal dated 2.4.79, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition No. 570 of 1979 before this Court hut was not successful as the SLP was dismissed on 25.7.79.

(3.) WHILE it was so, the Registry of the High Court examined the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the appellant in M.C.C. No. 136/80 under Rule 5 of Rules regarding contempts framed by the High Court (Notification No. 8958 - Nagpur dated the 24th October, 1(53) and placed the matter before the learned Chief Justice of the said High Court who on that motion/reference passed an order on 2.5.1980 to place the matter before a Division for further action. The Division Bench before which the matter was placed took cognizance of criminal contempt and directed issue of notice on 13.5.80 to the appellant directing to show cause as to why he should not he punished for contempt of Court to which the appellant filed his reply raising certain preliminary objections stating that the notice was had for the reasons, namely, (1) The Section of the Act under which cognizance had been taken was not specifically mentioned; (2) Though the offending portions arc marked the notice does not show sufficient cause as to why the words and expressions used therein have been construed as contemptuous; (3) The procedure followed by the High Court was contrary to the rules framed by it and (4) No consent of the Advocate General has been obtained. The appellant, on the basis of the above objections prayed to discharge the rule of contempt.