D.N.Jha - (1.) THIS is an application under Contempt of Courts Act wherein it has been prayed that opposite parties 1 to 3 wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court dated 27-11-1984 and, therefore, they committed civil contempt and should be punished.
(2.) ON the motion being presented this Court on 14th December, 1984 issued notices to opposite parties 1 to 3 to show cause why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court dated 27-11-1984. The order dated 27-11-1984 being short one is quoted below :- " Issue notice. Until further orders, the orders dated 5-12-1983 and 20-9-1984 are hereby suspended. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue to discharge his duties and he shall be paid his full salary as was payable to him. " In compliance of the notice for contempt being issued by this Court respondents appeared personally and have also filed counter affidavits. The petitioner in turn has filed rejoinder affidavits. Thereafter a supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments and cross averments made by the respective parties in this contempt petition. It was stated before; me by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been put back in job and has also been paid his salary up to 28th February, 1985. This part has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently urged that the order was in clear terms and left no ambiguity, yet it was not given effect to and, therefore, the opposite parties; are guilty of wilfully disobeying the interim orders passed by this Court. It is relevant to mention certain dates in this connection. The petitioner was dismissed from service of the State Bank vide order dated 30th November, 1983 which was communicated to the petitioner on 23rd December, 1983. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by the appellate authority on 20th September, 1984. On 27-11-1984 W. P. No. 5629 of 1984 was filed in this Court on which the interim order, as quoted above, had been passed. This order was served on 28th November, 1984 on opposite party no. 3 Sri S. N. Ghoshal Branch Manager. There was some talk with the superior officers about which some confusion has been raised in counter affidavits. It is not necessary to discuss in detail whether there was individual service: of the stay order or not. It is, however, clear on reading of the facts that the stay order came to the notice of the respondents. On 11th December, 1984 on behalf of the respondents an application for vacation of stay order was moved in this Court which was listed for orders on 4th January, 1985. In the meantime on 10th December, 1984 the present petition for contempt had been moved in this Court which came up for orders on 14th December, 1984 and on that date notices for contempt had been issued. On the basis of facts stated above it is apparent that the stay order has not been complied with for quite some time. The question which required consideration is whether there was wilful disobedience or it was because of want of proper advice that order of stay could not be complied with for such a long period. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that although the order was in explicit terms and did not suffer from any ambiguity, still it was not complied insipte of repeated reminders. He further urged that respondents are very superior officers of the State Bank. They ought to have implemented the judicial order, but they kept on wilfully postponing the implementation and thereby showed wilful disobedience and the order was treated with scant respect. He also pointed cut that application for vacation of stay order does not mitigate, the effect of the stay order and will not exonerate the respondents of their responsibility of implementing the order. Lastly he urged that the apology was not coming from the inner core of their heart but was only an eye wash. Learned counsel stated that the question of punishing or exhonerating is on Court but so far as the disobedience of the orders of this Court is concerned it is the duty of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Court the entire attending circumstances and facts.;