- (1.) U. C. Srivastava, J. The petitioner how was an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Counsil filed this contempt petition under the Contempt of Court Act for punishing the opposite party, Radhey Shyam Khanna, the President of U. P. Pharmacy Council, Lucknow for deliberately disobeying the interim order, dated 10-5-82 passed by this Court by which the order terminating the services of the petitioner was stayed and it was directed that the petitioner shall not be treated as having been relieved from his post.
(2.) IN the said termination order which was passed by the oposite-party it was provided that his services were no more required in U. P. Pharmacy Council and he was directed to submit joining report in U. P. Dental Council, Lucknow. The petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition in which he mentioned that his services were taken for some time by the U. P. Pharmacy Council on 1st August, 1980 and his services in the U. P. Pharmacy Council were temporary and were only for a particular purpose after which his services were no longer required. The petitioner's complaint is that despite service of order the opposite party did not obey the same and flouted it and he did not allow the petitioner to continue and treated him to have been relieved and even salary was not paid to him. Another order was passed by this Court on 7-8-87 and thereafter entire salary was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the interim order was duly communicated by him to the opposite-party by means of written application dated 12-5-82 along with the certified copy of the order which was received in his office on 30th May, 1982 and even then he did not treat him to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council and thereafter treated him to be relieved and thereby disobeyed the order and dispite repeated requests salary was not paid to him. It was also alleged that he met the opposite-party in his Chambers on 24th June, 1982 and requested him to treat the petitioner to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council and not to treat him to have been relieved, but the opposite-party refused to respect the order of this Court and stated that he would not be treated to be an employee of U. P. Pharmacy Council, and he was treated to be relieved on 30th August, 1982. In elaboration of his averments the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 3-9-82 in which it was stated that on 1-7-82 the salary of U. P. Pharmacy Council Staff was prepared in which his name was included, but the opposite-party struck off his name from the roll and refused to pay him salary. A copy of the bill showing that the name of the petitioner was struck-off was also filed and despite the orders passed by this Court he continued to treat him as having been relieved. The opposite-party further directed the Headquarter to consider the petitioner as having been relieved till the legal advice was not received. In the counter-affidavit which was filed to the writ petition out of which this contempt petition arises, the opposite-party stated the following words : "hence there is no question of his being allowed to work in the Phar macy Council on 30th May, 1982 as he could not have been perma nently transferred in this illegal manner. " In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite-party on 7th April, 1983 certain averments made by the petitioner in his affidavit were not controverted. In the counter-affidavit he stated that from the office he learnt that after obtaining interim order passed by this Court the petitioner was exploiting the order and was not attending the office and with reference to the petitioner's supplementary affidavit it was stated thereon that in the interim order passed by this Court there was no direction for payment of salary and that is why the petitioner moved separate applications before this Court and the salary was subsequently paid. It was denied that the petitioner met him in his Chamber. It was further stated that he had no Chamber of this own and he used to sit in the Chambers of Registrar and on the date the petitioner alleged to have met him, he was away at Kanpur. On oath it was also denied by him that any order dated 29-6-82, referred to by the petitioner, by which ho is said to have directed the Headquarter the petitioner having been relieved was passed by him. It is thus evident that there was no denial of the fact that pay-bills of the petitioner were not passed by the opposite-party on the ground that his name struck-off the rolls. In the counter-affidavit he did not deny that in paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit to the writ petition filed by him he had stated that hence there was no question of his being allowed to work in Phar macy Council after 30-4-82 any more as there could not be any permanent transfer in this manner. In his rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner reiterated what he said in his affidavit accompaying the contempt petition and filed certain documents along with is. He filed copy of his leave application dated 12-5-82 and copy of note dated 3-6-82 by the Head Clerk of U. P. Pharmacy Council to the opposite- party making reference to the interim order passed by this Court mentioning therein that he has not paid salary to the petitioner and he was pressing hard for the same. The opposite-party -made a note over it for obtaining legal advice from Sri Akhlesh Sahai, Advocate, to clear affect by 4-6-b2. The opposite-party also made reference, to the letter dated 17-6-82 copy of which was sent to the Medical Secretary stating that the work done by the petioner was unauthorised. Copy of the same was also sent to the Station Officer, Wazirganj. In the counter-affidavit it was also stated that disciplinary action may be taken against those officers who allowed the peti tioner to continue to work in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. In the order dated 29-6-82, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-4 to the aformentioned rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that an application was moved by Yaskaran on 24-6-82 and the opposite-party passed the said order stating therein that he was transferred to Dental Council and pending advice from Sri Akhlesh Sahai, Advoate he should be permitted to work and distrub the Council Office.
(3.) THE above facts clearly indicate that the affidavit filed by the opposite-party is not only false but he flouted the interim order passed by this Court and was in mood not to accept the same and passed contrary order in defiance of the same and even acted on it. He has thereby committed gross contempt and is liable to be punished for the same. He is accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 within 15 days which will be deposited within this period and in case the amount of fine is not deposited within this period, he is awarded rigorous imprisonment of one month. Petition allowed. .;