S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) The petition in hand is for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated October 30, 1981 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur dismissing the petitioner, a Probationary Assistant Security Officer at Kanpur Office of the Bank from service in exercise of powers vested in him by Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 46 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations).
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Security Officer (on probation) by an order dated July 11, 1980 on starting basic pay of Rs. 900/- per mensem in the scale of Rs. 900-50-1000-55-1110-60-1230-65-1360-70-1430-EB-70-1500-75-1800, besides allowances indicated in the appointment order, on the basis of which his emolument per mensem was calculated to be Rs. 1767/- at the rate then in force.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner married one Sushma Somal on May 10, 1973. A daughter Sweeta was born on September 16, 1974 and son Sandeep on April 1, 1975. Some time in 1976 relation between the husband and wife became estranged and they started living separately. The children were living with the mother, but it appears that son Sandeep was removed from her custody by the petitioner in 1977, whereupon the wife Sushma Somal moved an application under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking the custody of her minor son Sandeep. An ex parte order was passed in her favour and pursuant to that order she recovered the custody of her son with the help of police. But later on son again appears to have been forcibly taken away by the petitioner from the custody of the wife, whereupon she gave a report to the police, on the basis of which a case underSection 363 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. But the police could not search out the child, whereupon the wife of the petitioner filed an application under Article226 of the Constitution of India in Delhi High Court for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing her husband to produce her son. A rule nisi was issued by the Delhi High Court, in response to which the petitioner filed a counter affidavit denying that he had ever kidnapped the child. The allegation of the petitioner was that the entire case had been fabricated to forestall any application by him under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of his son on the ground that he (son Sandeep) had completed five years of age and therefore he (petitioner) was entitled to the custody of the son. The Delhi High Court accepted the case of the wife and held that Sandeep had been 'unauthorisedly' taken away from the lawful custody of his mother by the petitioner. A writ was accordingly issued and petitioner was directed to produce the child in the Court on December 17, 1980, so that the custody of the child could be given to the mother. The petitioner failed to produce the child, whereupon Delhi High Court held the petitioner guilty of contempt of court and accordingly directed him to be taken into custody and detained in Civil prison until he produces the child in the Court. 3A. An appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1981, was filed by the petitioner in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of Delhi High Court committing him to civil prison for contempt of court and a Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. No. 1 of 1981 was also filed against the order of Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Criminal appeal as also the Special Leave Petition were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by common judgment and order dated February 18, 1981 (reported in (AIR) 1981 SC 1026), a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the instant writ petition. The Supreme Court substituted the Delhi High Court's order for keeping detention of the petitioner in civil prison until he produces the child in the Court, by a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.;