- (1.) In L. P. A. No. 367 of 2000 (R) on 16-8-2001 the following interim order was passed by the Division Bench :- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we admit the appeal and stay the operation of the judgment under challenge passed by the learned Single Judge and also stay and suspend the operation of the impugned transfer order and by ordering restoration of status-quo-ante as appearing prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order relegate the petitioners appellants to their respective original positions." This contempt application is based on the aforesaid Division Bench Order linked with the petitioner's grievance that on 12-11-2002, months after the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Khunti. Notice of show cause was issued and Mr. Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi filed his show cause on 28-1-2003, in which he basically raised two pleas. The first plea was that the petitioner vide Order dated 12-11-2002 was transferred from Ranchi to Khunti within the same district and because the Division Bench Order dated 16-8-2001, as per the understanding of the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi did not restrain any intra-district transfer, the issuance of the order dated 12-11-2002 was not an act of violation of the aforesaid Division Bench Order. The second plea was that the officer competent to transfer was the District registrar and he merely being a District Sub-Registrar was subordinate to the District Registrar and, therefore, the Contempt Proceedings against him should not proceed. In other words what he implied meant by this averment was that Contempt, if at all, might have been committed by the District Registrar. Actually, it was because of the second plea that we called upon the District Registrar to appear and file his show cause, even though the petitioner had not originally impleaded him as a respondent-Contemnor in this case.
(2.) The District Registrar has filed his show cause, a reading whereof clearly reveals that he had joined on the post of District Registrar on 16-9-2002. On 19-10-2002 a proposal was placed before him by Shri Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-registrar, Ranchi for transferring the petitioner from Ranchi to Khunti. A copy of the proposal/note is filed as Annexure-A/1 with the show cause of the District Registrar, a perusal whereof does show that in this proposal/note Shri Rup Lal Manjhi did not even care to inform the District Registrar about the passing of the aforesaid Division Bench Order on 16-8-2001 and the fact that that Order continued to operate as on the date of submission of that proposal. The District Registrar obviously had no means of acquiring any knowledge about the passing of the Division Bench Order. He went by the advice of his subordinate and in total ignorance of the passing or the continued operation of the aforesaid High Court Order, he approved the proposal, which resulted in the passing of the transfer order on 12-11-2002. The District Registrar, therefore, cannot be held to have committed any Contempt of this Court in any manner. The District Registrar was dragged in these Contempt Proceedings only because Rup Lal Manjhi, District Sub-Registrar unsuccessfully tried to shift the blame upon him. If he thought that under the cloak of shifting the blame on the District Registrar, he might succeed in avoiding his liability of answering the Contempt Charge, to say the least, the conduct of Shri Rup Lal Manjhi in doing so and thereby unnecessarily dragging his Superior Officer into the Contempt dragnet and also thus in unsuccessfully trying to extricate him, is very deplorable and totally unbecoming of a disciplined Government Servant.
(3.) Shri Rup Lal Manjhi has not pleaded the ignorance on his part of the Division Bench Order dated 16-8-2001. Despite his clear knowledge of the passing of that order and despite he being the person directly responsible in the matter, in failing to record in his note dated 19-10-2002 the fact about the passing of the Order by the Court he also committed an act of dereliction of duty in misleading his Superior Officer about the existence and continued operation of the High Court Order.;