Jawahar Nath Takru, J. - (1.) Mohammad Ahmad Siddiqui has filed this petition praying that the opposite party No. 1 be punished for committing contempt of Court.
(2.) The case for the Petitioner as set out in his petition and the supporting affidavit, supplementary affidavit, and rejoinder affidavit, is that he was appointed a Go -operative Supervisor in 1956 and, in November, 1961 he was posted to Anapur in the district of Allahabad. In that month one Chandrabali Lal was posted as Co -operative Inspector to the Kaurihar Block, and he was the Petitioner's immediate superior Officer. For some reason or the other, Chandra Bali Pandey began bearing a grudge against the Petitioner and he made several complaints against the Petitioner to the superior authorities. Not content with making complaints, he also concocted a number of false cases against the Petitioner and made false reports regarding them to the authorities. Finally on 11 -5 -1962 he filed a FIR against the Petitioner at PS Nawabganj as a result of which Crime No. 52 was registered against him. Later, on the basis of this report four Sessions Trials were started against the Petitioner being Sessions Trials Nos. 153 of 1964, 242 of 1965, 287 of 1965 and 288 of 1965, but even before the Police had submitted the charge -sheets of those trials against the Petitioner, the departmental authorities issued a charge -sheet against him on 21 -2 -1963 requiring him to submit his written statement by 15 -3 -1963. The Petitioner filed his written statement on 30 -4 -1963. Thereafter on 22 -10 -1965, the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Sessions trial No. 153 of 1964. On 26 -10 -1965, the Petitioner filed an appeal against his aforesaid conviction and sentence in this Court and the same is still pending. Subsequently Sessions trials Nos. 287 of 1965 and 288 of 1965 were also decided on 27 -5 -1966 and 3 -6 -1966 respectively and the Petitioner was acquitted in both of them. The fourth trial namely, S.T. No. 242 of 1965 was, however, still pending in the court of the 1st Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. During the pendency of that trial, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 who are the members and officers of the local Disciplinary Committee, in order to Ccuise harassment to the Petitioner, and without notice to him, considered the charges against him on merits, and on or about 20 -6 -1966, recommended to the Provincial Co operative Union, UP, Lucknow, opposite party No. 1 to terminate the Petitioner's services, who till then was only under suspension. Pursuant to that recommendation, opposite party No. 1, gave a notice to the Petitioner, requiring him to appear before it on 9 -11 -1966, and to show cause against the proposed recommendation. The Petitioner replied to that notice on 4 -11 -1966 whereby he in -formed opposite party No. 1, that as the matter was still subjudice both in the trial court and in the High Court it should stay its hands, but it did not pay any heed to the reply and terminated the Petitioner's services. On these allegations the case for the Petitioner is that the opposite parties are liable to be punished for committing contempt of court.
(3.) On this petition, notice was issued to the opposite parties and in response to it they put in appearance and filed their joint written -statement. Briefly stated their case is that when the Co -operative Inspector reported that the Petitioner was responsible for a number of embezzlements and misappropriations of the assets and properties of the Co -operative Society at Anapur, the Assistant Registrar suspended him and later when the audit report revealed an embezzlement to the tune of about Rs. 35,000/ - , charges were framed against the Petitioner on 21 -2 -1963 and he was called upon to submit his explanation thereto by 15 -3 -1963. Earlier on 11 -5 -1962, a report about the said embezzlements had also been lodged with the police on the basis of it the latter started a number of Sessions trials against the Petitioner. The opposite parties' case further is that although they had nothing to do with the Petitioner's prosecution they nevertheless stayed the departmental enquiry when the Petitioner made a request to them to that effect. However, when the Sessions trials ended on 22 -10 -1965, they resumed the departmental enquiry in order to determine whether the Petitioner was a fit and proper person to be retained in service, irrespective of the results of the criminal cases which were concerned with the question whether the offences with which the Petitioner was »charged had been brought home to him or not?. The opposite parties denied that the Petitioner was at any stage required to disclose his defence in the criminal cases which were pending against him, and they maintained that the departmental proceedings were not public.;