Patna High Court - Orders
Vishal Kumar Lal vs The Union Of India & Ors on 17 September, 2014
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2195 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8774 of 2014
======================================================
1. Vishal Kumar Lal, Son of Vinod Lal Das, Resident of 404-B, Shiv
Shubala Apartment, Chiragora Hirapur, P.O.+P.S.- Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, (Jharkhand), Presently residing at Bahadurpur (Dyodhi Gali),
P.O.- Samastipur, District- Samastipur, (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India Mr. Arvind Mayaram, son of not known to the
petitioner, Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of India
2. Mr. K.R. Kamat, son of not known to the petitioner, Chairman AND
Managing Director Indian Banking Associations, World Trade Centre, 6th
floor, Centre 1 Building, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuff Parade,
Mumbai- 400005
3. Mr. Anup Sankar Bhattacharya son of not known to the petitioner,
Director Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IBPS House, Behind
Thakur Polytechnic Kandivali (E) Mumbai
4. Mr. M. Narendra son of not known to the petitioner, Chairman and
Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, 763 Anna Salai, Chennai
600002
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary
For the UOI : Mr. Gautam Saha, Advocate
For the IBPS : Mr. Sidharth Prasad, Advocate
For the IOB : Mr. Shivendra Kr. Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 17-09-20141. This is an application seeking initiation of contempt proceeding against Opposite party no. 4 and punishing him for having committed contempt of Court by deliberately disobeying the order of this Court dated 16.05.2014 passed in CWJC No. 8774 of 2014. By the said order following direction was given to the Respondent Indian Overseas Bank:-
2
"I must observe that any adverse order on the petitioner's representation can be passed by the Respondent-Bank only if it comes to a conclusion that the wrong entry made by the petitioner as regards his date of birth in on-line application was intentional and he could have derived any benefit in any manner by such wrong entry. Till final decision is taken the respondent-Bank shall keep one post reserved, to be filled subject to result of petitioner's representation."
2. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 16.05.2014 the General Manager Human Resources Development Department of the Bank has passed an order on04.06.2014. The petitioner's claim has been rejected without recording any finding that wrong entry made by him as regards his date of birth in on- line application was intentional. There was clear direction in most unambiguous terms in the said order that any adverse order on the petitioner's representation can be passed by the Respondent-Bank only if it comes to the conclusion that wrong entry was made intentionally. I consider rejection of the petitioner's representation without recording any such finding to be in deliberate defiance of this Court's order.
3. A show cause reply has been filed on behalf of the Opposite party No.4, the Chairman and Managing Director, Indian 3 Overseas Bank, 763 Anna Salai, Chennai justifying the said order of the General Manager, Human Resources Development Department, Indian Overseas Bank. It is thus, amply clear that the Chairman of the Bank has approved the order passed by the General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank. According to me, the Chairman by doing so, has also committed gross contempt of this Court. The show cause filed on behalf of Opposite party no.4 is hereby rejected.
4. I have taken into account a submission made on behalf of the Opposite party no.4 that a Letters Patent Appeal has also been preferred against the order of this Court dated 16.05.2014, violation of which has been complained of. At the same time the Court has also taken note of the fact that Letters Patent Appeal has been filed much after passing of the order dated 04.06.2014 in compliance of this Court's order dated 16.05.2014 and after filing of the present contempt application. This is an admitted fact that in the said Letters Patent Appeal, till date the Opposite party no.4 has not filed any application for stay of the operation of this Court's order dated 16.05.2014. I am of the prima facie view that contempt of this Court was committed by the authorities of the Bank the day the order dated 04.06.2014 came to be passed, said to be in compliance of this Court's order. In such 4 circumstance, I refuse to accept the submission that I should not proceed with the contempt petition in view of pendency of Letters Patent Appeal
5. The Opposite party No.4 is directed to show cause as to why he be not punished for willful disobedience of this Court's order after holding him guilty of contempt of this Court. He is also directed to be personally present on 15.10.2014.
Put up this matter on 15.10.2014.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-
U