- (1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 14, 1992 passed in COCP No. 839 of 1991, who while disposing of the same observed, thus :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that even if it is assumed that the respondents had no knowledge of the stay order dated 17th January, 1991 when Resolution dated 30th January, 1991 was passed, it was in the fitness of things that this Resolution should have been recalled on 6th April, 1991 when the matter was reconsidered and admittedly stay order was to their knowledge. It seems that the respondents were not well advised not to recall the earlier resolution. The Managing Committee should have first considered the question of the regularisation of the petitioner's services and then if any action was to be taken against the petitioner, the same could be taken. Be that as it may, without going any further into the matter, I consider it appropriate that the Division Bench order would be deemed to have been complied with in spirit if now the representation of the petitioner Pat Ram is decided within six weeks from today. In the meantime, the petitioner would be taken back on duty right from 30th January, 1991 and would be paid the arrears within one month from today."
(2.) The facts :- The respondent-petitioner (hereinafter the petitioner) was an employee of Farwain Co-operative Credit and Service Society (Mini Bank), Farwain (for short 'the Society'), to avail the benefit of the decision popularly known as Piara Singh's case reported as 1988 2 SLR 739, moved this Court through CWP No. 842 of 1991 against the appellants and one Mani Ram (since deceased). The motion bench did not think it proper to issue notice to the respondents to the writ petition and after hearing the petitioner's counsel passed the following order on January 17, 1991 :- "The petitioners are seeking regularisation of their services in view of Piara Singh's case, 1988 4 SLR 739 without making any representation to the authority who will pass speaking order on the same within one year thereof. Status quo regarding service to continue as it exists today subject to their filing the representation within a fortnight. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
(3.) The petitioner alleged that he had submitted a representation dated January 27, 1991 to the appellant as directed by the bench disposing of the writ petition, but the appellant, without deciding his representation, terminated his services on January 30, 1991. The appellants were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to the contempt petition. The petitioner moved this Court under Section 12 of the Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellants and one Mani Ram. In para 3 of the contempt petition he stated, thus :- "That thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.1.1992 to the respondents in the writ petition. The copy of the representation is attached herewith as Annexure P-1." The averments made in this paragraph were supported by an affidavit of the petitioner. The appellants filed a joint written statement and para 3 of the same reads, thus :- "That para 3 of the petition is absolutely false and baseless and, hence, denied. No such representation dated 27.1.1991 was ever submitted to the respondents. In fact, the petitioner sent his representation dated 20.3.1991 to the Assistant Registrar of the Society which was never forwarded to the society or to the present respondents. The Secretary of the Society informed the respondents for the first time in the meeting held on 6.4.1991 that a representation of the petitioner had been received in the office of the Society Assistant Registrar on 20.3.1991. The respondents had no knowledge of any such representation of the petitioner or of the stay order issued by this Hon'ble Court prior to 6.4.1991. The petitioner submitted no representation dated 27.1.1991 in the office of the Society or to the respondents on 27.1.1991 or on any other date. The petitioner was required to submit the representation within 15 days from the date of the order of this Hon'ble Court i.e. 17.1.1991 but he sent his representation dated 20.3.1991 for the first time vide Registered letter No. 1528 dated 20.3.1991, whereas, he had been removed from the service of the Society on 30.1.1991 with immediate effect vide, Resolution Annexure P-2. The representation dated 27.1.1991, Annexure P-1 is the product of an after-thought. The petitioner prepared the Representation Annexure P-1 after having been removed from service and the same was ante-dated and submitted to the Members of the Committee other than the present respondents who are shown to have received the same in the back date i.e. 27.1.1991. The Representation Annexure P-1 is patently fictitious and is shown to have been received by some Members other than the respondents in the back date. No such representation was put up in the meeting held on 30.1.1991 in which resolution Annexure P-2 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner prepared the representation Annexure P-1 in the back date which was received by certain Members in the back date i.e. 27.1.1991 with ulterior motive to show that he had been removed from service after the submission of the representation within the stipulated period and further to make out a case of Contempt against the respondents. The Members of the Committee who received the said representation of the petitioner actually much after the termination of his service but ostensibly on 27.1.1991, are in collusion with the petitioner and this false record has been prepared with their complicity. The Representation Annexure P-1 was not sent by the petitioner by post but was served dasti upon the members other than the respondents, in the back date i.e. on 27.1.1991. The stay order of this Hon'ble Court dated 17.1.1991 was never brought to the Notice of the respondents either by the petitioner or by anyone else till 6.4.1991 nor did the respondents have any knowledge of the representation dated 20.3.1991 sent by post by the petitioner to the Assistant Registrar and it was only on 6.4.1991 during the course of the meeting that the said stay order and the said representation were brought to the notice of the respondents by the Secretary and they had no knowledge thereof prior to 6.4.1991. Had the representation dated 27.1.1991, Annexure P-1 been actually submitted on 27.1.1991, it would have been certainly put up in the meeting held on 30.1.1991 and there was no reason that the petitioner and the Members of the Committee who received the said representation, would have withheld the representation till 6.4.1991 and would have not put up the same in the meeting on 30.1.1991. In fact, no such representation had been received by the said Members on 27.1.1991 and it was actually received after the termination of the services of the petitioner but was shown to have been received on 27.1.1991. It may be further submitted that had the petitioner submitted the representation on 27.1.1991, there would have been no necessity to send another representation dated 20.3.1991. It is evident that the representation Annexure P-1 was prepared after 20.3.1991." The appellant's counsel denied that any representation as alleged by the petitioner was filed. They took a further stand that the alleged representation was ante-dated and submitted to some of the members of the Society who in collusion with the petition prepared a false record with a view to support the petitioner that he had filed a representation on January 27, 1991. Respondent No. 4 Sh. Pat Ram also filed an affidavit dated October 30, 1991 denying the allegation made by the petitioner regarding the filing of the representation. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the written statement by way of affidavit and reiterated that the representation had been filed as alleged by him in para 3 of the contempt petition.;