J. R. CHOPRA, J. - (1.) ORDER pronounced in open Court.
(2.) THE Case comes up for orders on the contempt petition filed by the petitioner under sec. 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. It was submitted that the petitioner filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3944 of 1989 before this Court pleading, inter-alia, that at the behast of the Minister concerned, who belongs to Bikaner, he is likely to be displaced from his present place of posting. This writ petition was filed on 23. 10. 1989 and at that time, he was working as Executive Engineer, Khara Division, CAD, IGNP, Bikaner. It is alleged that the petitioner joined as Executive Engineer, Khara Division, C. A. D. I, GNP, Bikaner on 23. 3. 1989. It is further alleged that at the time of filing of this writ petition, parliamentary elections were declared and a ban was imposed on the State Govt. not to transfer any Officer/official after 1. 10. 1989. However, an order was sent by the Deputy Secrstary to the Government that respondent No. 3 Shri Surendra S. Rai, Executive Engineer, who is returning from training should be given charge of Khara Division, C. A. D. , I. G. N. P. , Bikaner as per the orders of the Minister concerned. This order is dated 7. 10. 1989. THE petitioner folt that he will be displaced from his present place of posting mspite of the ban and, therefore, he moved this writ petition praying therein that he should not be displaced from his present place of posting because his family has settled at Bikaner and his displacement will result in discontinuance of the studies of his children. It is alleged that the petitioner himself was appreached for giving consent about his transfer but he refused to oblige. Alongwith the writ petition, he also filed S. B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 3724 of 1989. It was ordered by this Court in S. B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 3724 of 1989 on 2. 11. 1989 that the Petitioner should not be displaced from his present place of posting till 7. 12. 1989. It is alleged that by order Annexure-5 dated 2. 11. 1989, the petitioner was displaced from his present place of posting and Shri Surendra S. Rai was posted as Executive Engineer, Kharakhand Div. , C. A. D. , IGNP, Bikaner in place of the petitioner. It was submitted that on 3. 11. 1989, the petitioner came to Jodhpur on Official duty and he contacted his lawyer in the morning, who telegraphically informed about this Court's order dated 2. 11. 1989 to the respondents. The petitioner also telephonically informed the respondents on 3. 11. 1989 from Jodhpur at 11. 00 A. M. about this Court's order dated 2. 11. 1989. However, it is alleged that respondent No. 3 joined as Executive Engineer, Kharakhand Division, C. A. D. , IGNP, Bikaner on 3. 11. 1989 under the orders of the competent authority dated 2. 11. 1989. The contention of the petitioner is that it is a clear cut contempt of this Court whereas the contention of the respondents is that they had no intention whatsoever to disobey the orders of this Court, They never knew that the petitioner has sought any relief from this Court and any relief has been granted to him by this Court on 2. 11. 1989. According to the respondents, prior to the receipt of petitioner's communication, respondent No. 3 had. joined his duties. The petitioner's telegrams were received by the respondents on 3. 11. 1989. at 3 PM whereas respondent No. 3 had joined his duties on that very day at about 11 AM. The respondents have, therefore, submitted that they had no knowledge of the orders of this Court and all these actions have been taken by them before they came to know about these orders which were communicated to them through telephone and telegrams, and hence, it is not a case of intentional contempt. It was also submitted that the orders of this Court were that the petitioner should not be displaced from his present place of posting. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner's transfer vide Order Annexure-5 does not involve a change of a place but it involves only a change of his Office, which is also situated at Bikaner and, therefore, the studies of his children cannot be adversely affected. However, the respondents have regretted their conduct and tendered an unconditional apology in respect thereof but they have maintained that they have no intention to disobey the orders of this Court. Mr. K. N. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during that period, the election process was on and there was a complete ban on transfer and so, the petitioner could not have been disturbed from his present place of posting. Mr. Joshi has submitted that in view of this Court's order dated 2. 11. 1989, neither his place of posting nor his post should have been disturbed. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that there was no change of the petitioner's place of posting but it was only arguments of Mr. Byas. When there was a complete ban on transfers, the petitioner could not have been transferred from his present place of posting meaning thereby that neither his place of posting nor his post could have been disturbed. If respondent No. 3 Shri Surendra S. Rai was to be posted, he could have been posted against the vacant post and, therefore, the order Annexure-5, dated 2. 11. 1989 cannot be categorised as bonafide. Moreover, the petitioner was sent on Govt. duty to Jodhpur on 3. 11. 1989. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was wilfully absconding and was avoiding the orders of the respondents. In such circumstances, when the petitioner was on Govt. duty, he should not have been removed from his post till he comes back and the respondent No. 3 could not have been given charge of his post in his absence particularly when he was on Govt. duty. Thus, this action on the part of the respondents was not bonafide. If the respondents had any doubt about the interpretation of the orders of this Court, they could have sought clarification from this Court rather than allowing respondent. No. 3 Shri S. Rai to join his duties in haste. Be that as it may, keeping in view the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar V. Sonabati Kumari (1), I am inclined to hold that it is not a case of intentional contempt of this Court but the action of the Officers also cannot be considered to be very much bonafide. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to hold that when the stay order dated 2. 11. 1989 was in operation, the petitioner could not have been disturbed from his present place of posting and, therefore, he should be restored back to the post of Executive Engineer, Kharakhand Division, C. A. D. , IGNP, Bikaner forthwith. The notices issued against the respondents are discharged with this direction that compliance of this Court's order dated 2. 11. 1989 should be made meaning thereby that the petitioner should be reposted as Executive Engineer, Kharakhand Division, C. A. D. , IGNP, Bikaner forthwith.
(3.) WITH these directions, this contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. .;