Patna High Court - Orders
Dr. Chandrdeo Pd. Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 October, 2015
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2747 of 2012
======================================================
Dr. Chandrdeo Pd. Sinha, son of Sri Guru Prasad Singh, Resident of
Kalibari Shamir Takiya, Civil Lines, Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shri Arun Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodhgaya,
Gaya
3. Shri D. K. Yadav, Registrar, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Gaya
4. Shri K. B. Sharma, University Professor, Department of Zoology,
Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Gaya
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh
Mr. Navjot Yeshu
For the O.P. No. 4 : Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narayan,
Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumud Kumar Shrivastava
For the State of Bihar : Mr. Lalan Kumar
AC to GP-23
For the University : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
***************
09. 14.10.2015The writ application was initially filed, which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 19146 of 2011. O. P. No. 4 was Respondent No. 4 in the said writ application. The issue was continuance of O. P. No. 4 of the present contempt proceeding as a Dean and HOD in Magadh University, Bodhgaya, Gaya. This Court is not required to go into the details of the adjudication so made, because the order speaks for itself. It is the deliberate and intentional violation of the directive issued therein, Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 2/11 which is the core issue before this Court now. After all the discussions and deliberations, the Court recorded its order in following terms: -
"According to this Court the tenure which has been prescribed will have to be calculated from the date of such notification made in favour of a person and can never be extended or be added merely because there may be periods of interruption when a person was prevented from working as such. Since the two notifications, contained in Annexure-5 and 6, are dated 31.03.2008 and 28.03.2009 respectively, the tenure in that capacity of the private respondent is way past over and, therefore, he can not hold that post any longer. The Court, therefore, holds that continuance of the private respondent on the two posts effective tomorrow, i.e., 20th March, 2012 shall cease."
By virtue of the order, dated 19.03.2012, O. P. No. 4, who is facing contempt, was to cease to hold the two posts, effective 20th of March, 2012. It is of significance that this order has become absolute and there is no ambiguity with regard to the direction.
Contempt application came to be filed by the petitioner, because O. P. No. 4 despite the clear direction issued in the writ, continued to function as HOD and Dean without any let and hindrance. It is alleged in the contempt application that O. P. No. 4 continued to perform various kind of responsibilities and duties. Many of which has been indicated in the contempt application. Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 3/11 Some of which being conducting inspections of colleges for grant of affiliation, presiding over meetings of PGRC as well as participation in enrollment and registration of Ph.D. and D.Lit degree. Adequate evidence has also been brought on record not only in the contempt application, but the subsequent exchange of pleadings and rejoinders filed from time to time. This Court has no hesitation in recording that those evidences are adequate to show that the O. P. No. 4 did perform the responsibility of Dean and HOD of the Department after 20th of March, 2012, as if the High Court's order had no meaning for him.
The diverse kind of official duties which the O. P. No. 4 has performed after 20th of March, 2012 are one to many. It is not a case of an omission or oversight with regard to a file here or a file there. Materials were adequate, therefore, to prima facie initiate a proceeding of contempt against O. P. No. 4, the Court directed him to file his show-cause.
The show-cause was considered and
rejected, because the Court not only found
discrepancies in the explanations offered by O. P. No. 4, but even a deliberate effort to play around with records and mislead the Court with regard to his performance of Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 4/11 duties and continuance on the post of Dean and HOD after 20th of March, 2012. The various documents and records speak for themselves.
There has been other development as well when the matter was earlier taken up. The Court had the privilege of another senior counsel representing the O. P. No. 4. Matter was taken up on 16th of September, 2015. Arguments were made from both sides. Due to paucity of time the hearing could not be concluded. The Court directed the matter to be listed on the next date, i.e., on 17th of September, 2015. On 17th of September, 2015, the contemnor did not appear, but an oral prayer was made by Advocate-on-Record as well as learned senior counsel that O. P. No. 4 is indisposed. It was also made known to the Court that because of the above fact, he is unable to attend the Court proceedings. No application for exemption or adjournment was made but an I.A. was said to have been filed but was not on record. The Court enquired from Advocate-on-Record as to when O.P. 4 would appear, so that the proceedings can carry on. Counsel informed the Court that his client is incommunicado.
Thereafter an Interlocutory Application, bearing I. A. No. 7834 of 2015 was filed, seeking Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 5/11 exemption, which was placed on record. The details of the order recorded in the earlier part of the present proceeding would be reflected from the order-sheet, dated 18.09.2015. Matter was adjourned to 21st of September, 2015. On 21st of September, 2015, the Advocate-on-Record for O. P. No. 4 informed the Court that a private doctor has referred the O. P. No. 4 to AIIMS for treatment and, therefore, he cannot appear even today. The said position was indicated by way of an affidavit. Matter was again taken up on 24th of September, 2015 on which date I. A. No. 7990 of 2015 was filed, indicating the reason as to why O. P. No. 4 is absconding from participation in the proceeding. Certain prescriptions of doctors were annexed. The Court was also informed that O. P. No. 4 has gone to Ranchi to avail treatment in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences. It is evident from the materials that he was only registered as an outdoor patient. The Court directed the Director as well as the Principal Secretary, Health, Government of Jharkhand to inform the Court as to what kind of treatment O. P. No. 4 has availed of, since an impression was created upon the Court that O. P. No. 4 is quite unwell.
An affidavit on behalf of State of Jharkhand Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 6/11 has been filed, where the Director as well as the Principal Secretary, Health has clearly indicated that except for registration as outdoor patient, O. P. No. 4 never turned up for any service. However, this fact is sought to be rebutted by O. P. No. 4 by bringing certain evidence of pathological or other tests in a supplementary show-cause filed today.
Today O. P. No. 4 is represented through yet another senior counsel. He has tried to impress upon the Court that the O. P. No. 4 was basically imprudent and foolish in interpreting or understanding the order of this Court. In normal course of things, after 20th of March, 2012, he ought not to have performed any duty as a Dean or as HOD. Though there was an observation of the Court that the Vice-Chancellor would make arrangement to fill up those positions. Since O. P. No. 4 did not get any clear indication from the Vice-Chancellor as to whom he shall hand over charge, therefore, out of compulsion he continued to do some routine duties as a Dean and HOD.
The question which arises is whether O. P. No. 4 will go by the dictates and direction of the Court or whether he will abide by the dictates of his superiors. If he decided to go by the command of the superiors then Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 7/11 he has to pay the price for his indiscretion. The later part of the direction of the Court to the Vice-Chancellor to fill up the vacancy created by ouster of O. P. No. 4 was not to accrue to the advantage of O. P. No. 4, because the Court was unambiguous in recording that he shall cease to hold the two posts from 20th of March, 2015.
The inspection reports of the various inspections of colleges which was conducted, of which O. P. No. 4 was also a signatory relates to the periods after he was debarred from performing any duties either as a Dean or an HOD. A closer look of some of the inspection reports would itself indicate that those inspections were carried out on or about date indicated in the signature itself and surely after 20.03.2012. An impression was sought to be created that the O. P. No. 4 only put his signature as a formality. The reports were prepared and since he was one of the parties to those inspections, therefore, there was his bounded duty to put his signature on those reports. Some of those reports indicate the balance in the bank account of the college inspected. The signature was appended on 02.04.2012 etc. The bank balance and the report, therefore, do not match as to the date when the inspection was carried out and the plea which has been taken by O. P. No. 4 Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 8/11 that he only put his signature as a formality, does not seem to be true. In fact, it is one of the clear indications that he continued to discharge his duties as a Dean of the University.
Such is the position even with regard to his participation in the other meetings which he had presided. The counsel representing the university produces certain records and evidences to show that he did preside and participate in those meetings and effort was made to manipulate and interpolate the records.
There is an act of criminality even in the conduct of O. P. No. 4 along with some other persons who were involved in covering up the act of violation of the judicial order.
What is of significance is that the order passed by the Writ Court is dated 19th of March, 2012, the contempt was filed in the year 2012 on 18.06.2012.
Further, what is of significance is that O. P. No. 4 continued to be an important member of the university till 31.12.2013, naturally with the support of the powers that be, which included the then Vice-Chancellor and who is refusing to appear before this Court, allowed access to the records for manipulation and cover up.
In the normal course of things, the Court could Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 9/11 have given the benefit of doubt to O. P. No. 4. Some of the explanations given by the learned senior counsel as to why his client continued to perform his duties as a Dean and HOD could have been accepted. But, the conduct of O. P. No. 4 indicates that there has been a guilty mind all along for the period during which the contempt application remained pending for one reason or the other including filing of an appeal earlier, giving adequate time to rework the defense as well as documents in this regard. Therefore, the innocence which O. P. No. 4 pleads and the foolishness which he is talking about in performing such responsibilities is missing from his conduct otherwise.
It is a clear cut case of deliberate violation of a judicial order by taking chance and risk because O. P. No. 4 had some agenda assigned to him, which he had to complete before laying down the office as a Dean and HOD. This only indicates that the O. P. No. 4 has deliberately violated the order of the Court knowing fully well as to what the order was. He cannot hide behind the fact that since the Vice-Chancellor did not give any clear indication to him as to whom he should hand over charge is not a valid explanation to be accepted by the Court.
Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-201510/11
The Court was willing to take a lenient view of the matter, despite the above materials emerging against the O. P. No. 4 for violating the categorical order passed in the writ application, but the further effort to file false affidavit, to abscond from judicial proceeding and file wishy washy kind of prescriptions of doctors further aggravates the situation and the Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that every action of O. P. No. 4 is well planned, deliberate, calculated and there is no kind of element of innocence involved in such conduct.
In view of the same, the Court directs that O. P. No. 4 shall be taken into judicial custody and remanded to Beur Central Jail for civil imprisonment for one week, effective beginning even today. He shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) only as well.
Let the necessary documentation be done for remanding of the O. P. No. 4 to judicial custody.
A prayer for release of the O. P. No. 4 on bail is made. The prayer is rejected for the reason that the Court is satisfied with the reasons given above that he does not need to be enlarged on bail at the threshold itself looking at the lenient sentence, which has been passed against him.
Let the matter be listed with regard to the Patna High Court MJC No.2747 of 2012 (9) dt.14-10-2015 11/11 other O.P.s, who are not appearing and assisting in the proceeding.
Matter may come up on 9th of November, 2015.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) SKM/-
U