- (1.) This special appeal has been filed with an application for leave to appeal, against the order dated 6th December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge purportedly on an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26307 of 2010 (Dhruv Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and others). The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: Sri R.B. Pradhan, Standing Counsel informs that the enquiry in respect of the payment of salary against non-sanctioned and non-available posts in various institutions of district-Ballia has been completed and it has been found that in as many as 24 institutions payment of salary has been made against non-sanctioned/non-available posts. Detail of the institutions and the payment so fraudulently made has been brought on record today before the Court. The enquiry in that regard is stated to have been conducted by the Chief Secretary and thereafter by Sri Chandra Prakash, Principal Secretary-I alongwith other officers, as detailed in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed today. Future affidavit in this writ petition shall be filed by Sri Chandra Prakash himself. This Court finds that although the institutions, the District Inspector of' Schools and the Accounts Officers, who are involved in such fraudulent payment of salary against non-sanctioned and non-available posts in district-Ballia, have been identified yet neither any criminal action nor departmental proceedings/ proceedings for recovery of the loss caused to the State Exchequer have been initiated in right earnest. Investigation qua the criminal liability must be done with all fairness and with all promptness. Departmental enquiry must also be initiated immediately and all attempts should be made to fix the responsibility, in respect of financial loss caused, upon all responsible and effort to recover the amount be initiated. Let the Chief Secretary file his personal affidavit by 16.12.2010 disclosing the action so taken, as directed above. List on 16.12.2010.
(2.) The core question involved herein is that when as per the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter in short called as the "Rules of the Court") a separate Bench is constituted for the purpose of hearing the contempt cases, whether the Judge, who had passed the original order, can entertain any application and pass any order under Article 215 of the Constitution of India on the ground of noncompliance of order of such Judge or not. For the purpose of better understanding, Article 215 of the Constitution is quoted hereunder: 215. High Courts to be Courts of record.--Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
(3.) Basically, the Rules of the Court is handmade of justice. Hence, by such Rules, inherent power of the constitutional Courts as provided under Article 215 of the Constitution of India can not be usurped.;