- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the orders dated 7-11-2005 and 8-12-2005 of the Hon'ble Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 3689 of 2003. The order dated 7-11-2005 commands the appellant to comply with the judgment dated 27-4-2004 in letter and spirit except for payment of interest before the next date and file an affidavit failing which the Court may be left with no other option but to frame charges for trial and order dated 8-12-2005 holding appellant prima facie guilty of willful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 12-11-2003 and thereby frames charge as follows: "you, Justice Palok Basu (Retired) President of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, show cause why you should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate defiance and willful disobedience of the interim orders of this Court dated 12th November, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 50320 of 2003. "
(2.) WE have heard, Sri S. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C. S. Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ranjit Saxena for the respondent. From voluminous pleadings and written arguments submitted by the parties and lengthy arguments advanced, the facts, as emerges may be narrated, as under, to facilitate adjudication of the matter. The respondent, Sri R. K. Kulshrestha was a member of Higher Judicial Service and attained age of superannuation on 31-3-2000 while working as Additional District Judge, Moradabad. Vide State Government's notification dated 2-2-2001 issued under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, the respondent was appointed as Chairman (full time), District Consumer Forum, Etah for a period of 5 years or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. The appellant was appointed as Chairman, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'scdrc') and by Government Order dated 25-9-2002 he was also appointed Head of the Department of District Consumer Redressal Forums of State of U. P. Salary of the respondent after his appointment as Chairman, District Consumer Forum was fixed at Rs. 19,506/- per month and he received the said salary regularly till February, 2003. It appears that the SCDRC vide its order dated 15-3-2003 allotted budget to various District Consumer Forums authorizing Chairman of respective District Consumer Forums to act as Drawing and Disbursing Authority. After getting power to act as Drawing and Disbursing Authority, the respondent withdrew his current salary as well as balance of his past salary by calculating the same at the rate of Rs. 22,400/- per month instead of 19,506/ -. This matter was reported to the State Government vide SCDRC order dated 21-3-2003 whereupon the State Government vide order dated 31- 5-2003 (Annexure-14 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal) conveyed its decision that the current salary of the respondent is 19,506/- per month and by misconstruing various Government Orders issued earlier, he has wrongly withdrawn excess amount, and, therefore, cancelled higher pay fixation and excess withdrawal of salary by the respondent and also to recover the excess amount drawn by him. A further direction was issued to make an inquiry against him for wrongful withdrawal of salary. The State Government's letter was communicated to the respondent vide Registrar, SCDRC's letter dated 31-6-2003 asking him to refund the excess amount withdrawn towards salary. Besides, pursuant to the State Government's Direction contained in the letter dated 31-5-2003, the appellant issued order dated 4-9-2003 appointing Registrar, SCDRC, as inquiry officer to hold inquiry against the respondent and by order dated 10-9-2003, respondent was placed under suspension and attached with District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat. A third order was passed by the appellant on 15- 9-2003, withdrawing power of Drawing and Disbursing Authority from the respondent. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent deposited on 9-10-2003, Rs. 50,858/-being excess amount withdrawn by him. The Registrar, District Consumer Forum, Etah vide letter dated 13-10-2003 informed the factum of the said deposit to SCDRC. The respondent thereafter preferred Writ Petition No. 50320 of 2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court on 9-11-2003 seeking following reliefs: " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10-9- 2003 passed by the President, State Commission served upon the applicant on 12-9-2003 (Annexure 11 to this writ petition) and the order dated 04-9-2003 appointing Shri Roop Singh, HJS as a enquiry officer in violation of Rule 9 of the U. P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (Annexure No. 11 ). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the applicant from 01-3-2003 till date and balance of salary as prescribed by law and rules. (c) Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay damages of two lacs rupees for passing the illegal orders having no jurisdiction just to harass the applicant and to be recovered from the appropriate persons as decided by the Hon'ble High Court. (d) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) award the heavy cost of the present writ petition to the applicant. " The aforesaid writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench on 12-11-2003 and after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent, the Court recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the order to suspend or to conduct inquiry issued by the President, SCDRC is illegal and therefore, granted interim order, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder- "for the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 4-9-2003 and 10-9- 2003 are prima facie illegal, and hence we stay these orders till further orders. A copy of the order will be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charge today. A copy will also be given to the learned Standing Counsel today free of charge, and he shall communicate it to the State Government as well as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioner, Lucknow. "
(3.) FROM the perusal of the record of the writ petition, it appears that the writ petition was filed after serving notice in the office of Chief Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 5 only. A copy of the interim order was also received by the Chief Standing Counsel on 12-11-2003 at 5. 00 p. m. The registry subsequently issued notice to the respondent No. 2 impleaded in the writ petition by registered post A. D. on 19-11- 2003 fixing 18-12-2003. Though the notice was issued to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission through its Registrar impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition on 19-11-2003 fixing 18-12-2003, the respondent however filed a contempt petition No. 3689 of 2003 on 15-12-2003 itself alleging that he has not been paid salary from March, 2003 and onwards. The application appears to have been taken by Hon'ble Contempt Court on 17-12-2003 whereon the following order was passed "list on 19-1-2004 by which time learned Counsel for the applicant may file receipt of the order on the opposite party. " The SCDRC impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, in the meantime filed its counter- affidavit in the pending writ petition on 16-12-2003 whereupon a division Bench on 18-12-2003 passed an order directing for listing thereof at an early date. The record shows that the copy of the stay vacation application and counter-affidavit was served upon learned Counsel for the respondent on 15- 12-2003. The contempt petition it appears thereafter was listed before the Court on 19-1-2004 and it passed following order: "let notices be issued within one weeks to O. P. No. 1 & 2 returnable-within six weeks. ";