Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Gautam vs Urvashi Gulati & Anr on 27 March, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
COCP No. 1935 of 2011. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP No. 1935 of 2011. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 27th March, 2012.
Ashok Gautam Petitioner through
Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate
Versus
Urvashi Gulati & Anr. Respondents through
Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This Contempt Petition alleges non-compliance of the orders dated 03.02.2010 and 24.02.2011 [Annexures P-3 and P-5] passed by this Court in two different petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The first order pertains to a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to look into the allegations contained in the petitioner's representation against an IPS Officer, while the other order contained a direction to comply with the previous order within a period of two months.
[2]. The directions were indeed dealt with by the State Authorities in a most casual and callous manner, especially in the police department who apparently did not want the Chief Secretary to hold a fact finding inquiry. Such an inference is discernible from the following observations made by this Court on 29.08.2011:-
"Vide order dated 03.02.2010 a direction was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to look into the allegations contained in the representation [Annexure COCP No. 1935 of 2011. ::-2-::
P-8] with the Crl. Misc. No. M-2136 of 2010 and decide the same by passing a speaking order in accordance with law.
From the representation, it appears that allegations were made against one Mr. A.S.Chawla, IPS, Joint Commissioner of Police, Faridabad.
The aforesaid order was communicated to the respondents. Petitioner has placed on record copy of a memo dated 24.03.2011 which indicates that the Home Department of the State of Haryana referred the matter to the D.G.P., Haryana, who referred the same to the S.P., Kaithal for compliance and the S.P., Kaithal further referred the same to all the SHOs of District Kaithal.
This demonstrates a sorry state of affairs and the functioning of the Government. The direction was to the Chief Secretary to look into allegations against the I.P.S. Officer. The matter was never placed before the Chief Secretary. It seems to have been dealt with by the Superintendent-II[Home], who referred the same to the D.G.P., Haryana and it further went down the line up to the level of S.H.Os. of District Kaithal. The memo is an indicator that none of the functionaries of the Government has even bothered to examine the court order and in a most casual and callous manner dealt with the court direction by all such functionaries. From the memo it appears that the SHO has been asked to look into a complaint against an I.P.S.Officer.
The functioning of the Government has shocked the court. The court is left with no option but to put the respondents to notice to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them for not only non-compliance of the court directions but dealing with the court order in such an unconcerned and callous manner by the functionaries of the State, returnable within six weeks.
List on 30.09.2011".
[3]. The Chief Secretary, Haryana has thereafter filed her reply/affidavit fixing responsibility of four officials, who were allegedly responsible for not bringing the court orders to her notice and dealt with the matter in a casual manner. It is informed that one out of four officials, has already retired and as such no action can be taken against him, while the three others have been charge-sheeted. Suffice it to observe that appropriate action against the afore-stated COCP No. 1935 of 2011. ::-3-::
officials shall be taken in a time bound manner, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. [4]. As regard to the decision on the petitioner's representation, the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana has passed an order dated 05.09.2011 [Annexure R-2] rejecting the petitioner's request to accord sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute some of the police officers/officials against whom the petitioner made out a prima facie case in a private complaint filed by him. In my considered view, the petitioner's grievance can be adequately met with by granting him liberty to impugn the afore- stated order before an appropriate forum, if so advised or required. He may also rely upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before the Judicial Magistrate to contend that there is no pre- requisite of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in such like cases.
[5]. Rule discharged. [6]. Disposed of. Dasti. March 27, 2012. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE