- (1.) Heard Sri G.K. Singh, appearing for contemner, Rajesh Purohit, Director, Allahabad Museum, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Director) who is also present in Court. The genesis of the present proceedings for framing of charge lies in the order dated 18.9.2014 which reads thus: "Sri R.K. Singh, Advocate appears for respondent No. 2 and Sri Akhlesh Kumar Singh, Advocate is present on behalf of respondent No. 3. Sri Akhlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 in response to a query made by the Court about the number of sanctioned posts of Safai Karmi in the museum and the number of vacancies occurred after 1996 i.e. the settlement entered into between the workmen and the Director of museum prays a day's time to inform about the same. As prayed by him put up tomorrow peremptorily."
(2.) When the case was taken up on the next day i.e. 19.9.2014, a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 4, the Director but information about the number of posts as required to be furnished by him was not provided. The Court in the circumstances ordered him to be present in the Court on 22.9.2014 to explain as to why he is creating impediment in the dispensation of justice by not providing the information required by the Court for decision in the case. In its order, the Court also granted time to Sri Rajesh Purohit to support his statement regarding existence of vacancies by filing annual reports for the period 1996 to 2014 containing the position of vacancies etc. which is published by the Allahabad Museum, Allahabad. The order dated 19.9.2014 reads thus: "Supplementary Counter-affidavit filed by Sri Akhlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, is taken on record. Vide order dated 18.9.2014 the Court had granted one day time to learned counsel for respondent No. 3 for providing information with regard to the number of sanctioned posts of Safai Karmi in the museum and the number of vacancies of Safai Karmi occurred after 31.10.1996 i.e. the settlement entered into between the workmen and the Director of museum before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Allahabad. In response to above, supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed wherein a diagram (Annexure 1) showing the organizational set up of Allahabad Museum, Allahabad, indicating number of posts, their designations and pay scales has been enclosed. Alongwith supplementary counter-affidavit a copy of decision of Executive Committee dated 4.8.2010 has been filed which is not the letter of sanction of post of Safai Karmi by the Government. We may also note here that Annexure-1 has already been appended with the paper book of special appeal. Thus information sought by this Court appears to be deliberately not provided by the Director of Allahabad, Museum and by means of supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, an attempt has been made by him to mislead the Court by filing irrelevant documents which amounts to impediment in dispensation of justice. Let the Director, Allahabad Museum, Allahabad respondent No. 2 be present in the Court on 22.9.2014 the next date of listing to explain as to why he is creating impediment in the dispensation of justice by not providing the required information to the Court. As prayed, supplementary rejoinder-affidavit may also be filed by the next date of listing. Put up on 22.9.2014, i.e. Monday. Sri A.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent No. 3 will also inform about this order today to Sri S.K. Sharma, Director (Incharge), Allahabad Museum, Allahabad/respondent No. 3."
(3.) On 22.9.2014 learned counsel for the appellant raised arguments that Sri Rajesh Purohit, the Director had filed supplementary counter-affidavit in Court on 19.9.2014 under his own signatures as deponent of the said affidavit. It was urged by the counsel for the appellant that a perusal of the same shows manipulation of documents and fake averments made by the Director on affidavit. It would be relevant to refer at this stage the relevant portion of the order dated 22.9.2014 in this regard which reads thus: "As regards, the question of filing of false affidavit as well as non compliance of the order of this Court by the Director, Allahabad Museum, Allahabad is concerned, the matter is serious in view of the fact that earlier the then Director had also not complied with the orders of this Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case so far as the compliance of the order dated 19.9.2014 is concerned, we are of the view that Sri Rajesh Purohit, Director, Allahabad Museum, Allahabad had tried to mislead the Court by not only providing false information to the Court in counter-affidavit of review application that no permanent employee is working on vacant post, but also filing tampered document (Annexure 11 with the counter-affidavit). It is borne from record that apart from petitioner who is appointed pursuant to the order dated 26.11.2002 one more employee was working and therefore, only two posts were vacant. Let notices be issued to the Director, Allahabad Museum, Allahabad to show-cause as to why contempt proceedings and proceedings for forgery may not be drawn against him for misleading the Court by filing false affidavit with tampered document. List before appropriate Court after three weeks.";