# Ganesh Narain Shukla v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 57
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-05-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1487 of 2001
- **Bench:** D.P. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganesh-narain-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40379
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Sri S.B. Singh
Sri R.P. Tripathi
Sri Ashutosh Tripathi
Sri C.B. Yadav, C.S.C.-II
Sri Sudhir Agrawal, A.G.A.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-S. 12Punishment under Order by Writ Court
for
reinstatement
and
payment
of
current salary and arrears of salary for
ten years treating petitioner's date of
birth
as
13.7.1944-Deliberate
disobedience of order by DIOS-II for 4
years-Contempt petition by petitioner, a
permanent employee of aided SchoolHeld, examining conduct of contemnor
DIOS-II in leave no room for doubt that
she deliberately embased upon a course
to create hurdles in execution of order
with reprehensive defiance- Plea that
since order has been complied with now,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
58
Court
should
drop
proceedings
for
contempt-From
proceedings
it
is
apparent that contemnor was the officer
who set cat among pigeons which
resulted in willful defiance and non
compliance of order for four and half
years, though it was to be complied
within two months-No explanation by
contemnor why at least currant salary
was not released or any effort was made
by her even though she held office
released on any effort was made by her
even though she held office for eight
months from date of order-Hence she
was held guilty of contempt-Sentence of
two months simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.2000/- passed.

Held: Para 24

Examining the conduct of Smt. Maya
Niranjan from any angle leaves no room
of doubt that she consciously and
deliberately embarked upon a course to
create hurdles in the execution of the
order with reprehensive defiance. The
main
thrust
of
the
argument
has
remained that since the order has been
complied with now, the court should
drop the proceedings. From the facts
examined hereinabove, and also in the
connected Contempt Petition No.522 of
2001 it is apparent that Smt. Maya
Niranjan was the Officer who set the cat
among the pigeons which resulted in
willful defiance and non-compliance of
the order for four and a half years,
though it was to be complied within two
months. There is no explanation by Smt.
Maya Niranjan why at least the current
salary was not released or any effort in
that direction was made by her even
though she held the office for eight
months from the date of the order. In my
opinion, on these facts there is no other
option for the court except to hold her
guilty.
Case law discussed:
2002 (47) ALR 378
2002 (48) ALR 121 (SC)
AIR 2004 SC (Ist Supp.) 942
(1995) 2 SCC 584
AIR 1995 SC 2320
AIR 1976 SC 1967
AIR 1984 SC 1374

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 42,563. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Ganesh Narain Shukla V. State of U.P. and others
57
(b) where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce
him in rank is satisfied that for some
reason, to be recorded by that authority in
writing, it is not reasonably practicable to
hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor,
as the case may be, is satisfied that in the
interest of the security of the State it is not
expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as
aforesaid, a question arises whether it is
reasonably practicable to hold such
inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the
decision
thereon
of
the
authority
empowered to dismiss or remove such
person or to reduce him in rank shall be
final.
6. From the perusal of Article 311
(2) (b), of the Constitution of India the
authority has been given power to dismiss
or remove a person or to reduce in rank if
he is satisfied that it is not reasonable and
practicable to hold such enquiry but
reasons are to be recorded.

7. In the present case, from the
perusal of the order of dismissal, it
appears
the
disciplinary
authority
respondent no.2 has not recorded any
reason that it is not possible to hold an
enquiry. As the said reason is lacking in
the order of dismissal against the
petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for
relief.

8. In view of above, the order passed
by the respondent no.2 dated May 20,
2004 Annexure 1 is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The
order
dated
20.05.2004
passed
by
respondent no.2 is quashed and the
petitioner will be reinstated in service and
will be paid his salary. It would however
be open to the respondents to hold an
enquiry and pass the appropriate orders
according
to
law
after
giving
an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 1487 of
2001

Phuleshwar

...Applicant
Versus
Smt. Maya Niranjan and another

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri K.J. Khare
S.C.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri S.B. Singh
Sri R.P. Tripathi
Sri Ashutosh Tripathi
Sri C.B. Yadav, C.S.C.-II
Sri Sudhir Agrawal, A.G.A.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-S. 12Punishment under Order by Writ Court
for
reinstatement
and
payment
of
current salary and arrears of salary for
ten years treating petitioner's date of
birth
as
13.7.1944-Deliberate
disobedience of order by DIOS-II for 4
years-Contempt petition by petitioner, a
permanent employee of aided SchoolHeld, examining conduct of contemnor
DIOS-II in leave no room for doubt that
she deliberately embased upon a course
to create hurdles in execution of order
with reprehensive defiance- Plea that
since order has been complied with now,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
58
Court
should
drop
proceedings
for
contempt-From
proceedings
it
is
apparent that contemnor was the officer
who set cat among pigeons which
resulted in willful defiance and non
compliance of order for four and half
years, though it was to be complied
within two months-No explanation by
contemnor why at least currant salary
was not released or any effort was made
by her even though she held office
released on any effort was made by her
even though she held office for eight
months from date of order-Hence she
was held guilty of contempt-Sentence of
two months simple imprisonment and
fine of Rs.2000/- passed.

Held: Para 24

Examining the conduct of Smt. Maya
Niranjan from any angle leaves no room
of doubt that she consciously and
deliberately embarked upon a course to
create hurdles in the execution of the
order with reprehensive defiance. The
main
thrust
of
the
argument
has
remained that since the order has been
complied with now, the court should
drop the proceedings. From the facts
examined hereinabove, and also in the
connected Contempt Petition No.522 of
2001 it is apparent that Smt. Maya
Niranjan was the Officer who set the cat
among the pigeons which resulted in
willful defiance and non-compliance of
the order for four and a half years,
though it was to be complied within two
months. There is no explanation by Smt.
Maya Niranjan why at least the current
salary was not released or any effort in
that direction was made by her even
though she held the office for eight
months from the date of the order. In my
opinion, on these facts there is no other
option for the court except to hold her
guilty.
Case law discussed:
2002 (47) ALR 378
2002 (48) ALR 121 (SC)
AIR 2004 SC (Ist Supp.) 942
(1995) 2 SCC 584
AIR 1995 SC 2320
AIR 1976 SC 1967
AIR 1984 SC 1374

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Krishnaji Khare
counsel for the applicant and Shri C.B.
Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel-
II for the opposite party no. 1.

2. At the first blush, this case
appeared to be an exercise in futility and I
was about to discharge the notices
because the executor of the judgment,
Smt. Maya Niranjan, had already been
transferred from the post and the order
and judgment of the court had been
complied by her successor, though after
more than four years when it was to be
complied within two months. It appeared
to be yet another case of stagnant
officialdom relying upon the procedural
delays, which mars the working of nearly
every department of the Government. But
the counsel for the applicant, a reasonable
man,
begged
couple
of
minutes,
otherwise, he said, he would be failing in
his duty to the courts and the society.
With some reluctance, I agreed.

3. He started with some brief facts
and took me to certain paragraphs of the
writ judgment and couple of paragraphs
of counter affidavit and its annexures.
And he stopped. I could not. We together
read the judgment, the petition and the
counter with its annexures. He was right.
Though it was agonizing reading, but it
brought forth the defiant and "care two
hoots" attitude of Smt. Maya Niranjan. A
sense of helplessness slowly crept in, but
soon gave way to the duty that I owe to
the institution and the society.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
59

Smt. Maya Niranjan is a veterant of
contempt matters. She has about 60
matters pending against her before this
court. It spans her entire career.

4. The applicant was appointed as a
Farrash, on a fixed salary, in a duly
recognized
and
aided
Intermediate
College on 27.10.1959. He was given
permanent appointment as a peon with
effect from 1.8.1973. The date of birth of
the applicant was recorded in the Service
Book as 13.7.1944 and it remained
unchallenged for more than two decades.
However,
he
was
restrained
from
functioning as such by the College
Authorities with effect from 13.7.1994,
treating his date of birth as 13.7.1934.
Aggrieved, he represented his cause
before the District Inspector of Schools II,
who, after due enquiry and opportunity to
the Management, held by his order dated
29.11.1994, after examining the school
leaving certificate, Managers Returns etc.,
that his date of birth was 13.7.1944,
therefore, the applicant was to retire in
July, 2004. This order was never set aside
by any Superior Officer of the Education
Department.
Nevertheless,
the
Management preferred a writ petition no.
2022 of 1995 against the aforesaid order
wherein an interim order, staying the
operation of the order dated 29.11.1994,
was passed. Both the parties exchanged
their pleadings. During pendency of the
writ petition, the opposite party no. 1
directed the Associate District Inspector
of
Schools,
vide
her
order
dated
22.1.2000, to enquire into the correctness
of the date of birth of the applicant
recorded in the Service Book. The
Associate District Inspector of Schools,
without any opportunity to the applicant,
finalized the enquiry and submitted a
report dated 4.2.2000 to the opposite party
no.1, holding that the date of birth of the
applicant was 1934. The aforesaid enquiry
report was filed in the pending writ
petition through a supplementary affidavit
on 11.2.2000. A Learned Single Judge of
this court, after hearing the parties and
after considering the enquiry report in
detail, rejected the enquiry report and
dismissed the writ petition vide order and
judgment dated 21.2.2000 with the
following directions: -

"For the reasons given above, the
writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. The applicant and opposite
party no. 3 are directed to reinstate the
opposite party no. 4 in service and pay his
entire arrears of salary within a period of
two months from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before the
opposite party no. 3."

5. In the writ petition the opposite
party no. 1, was impleaded as opposite
party no. 3 whilst the applicant was
impleaded as opposite party no. 4.

The certified copy of the judgment of
this court was served on Smt. Maya
Niranjan through a covering letter dated
28.3.2000 which was admittedly received
by her on 30.3.2000. The order of the
learned
Single
Judge
was
never
challenged by any of the Educational
Authorities,
including
Smt.
Maya
Niranjan, before any competent court of
law. However, the Management filed a
Special Appeal no. 295 of 2000, but no
interim order was granted in the Special
Appeal, which was subsequently also
dismissed vide order dated 9.4.2000 by a
Division Bench of this court by a
reasoned order.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
60

6. The applicant filed a contempt
petition no. 522 of 2001 impleading the
immediate successor in office of Smt.
Maya Niranjan when his current salary
and so also the arrears were not paid
within time. Notices were issued on that
contempt petition on 26.2.2001 when a
counter affidavit was filed by Smt.
Shantwana Tiwari in that contempt
petition on 15.5.2001, whereafter the
applicant came to know that his salary has
not been paid in view of the fact that the
matter has been referred to the State
Government.

7. The present contempt petition,
was thereafter filed on 22.5.2001 and
notices were issued to Smt. Maya
Niranjan on 23.5.2001. Subsequently,
vide order dated 31.1.2003, both the
contempt petitions were connected.

8. The allegation in the present
contempt petition is that in spite of
service of the order of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench, the order
of the courts were being defied by Smt.
Maya Niranjan and instead of complying
with the same she was questioning the
very correctness and legality of the
judgment in her letter dated 9.5.2000
before
the
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) wherein she had reiterated
the enquiry report submitted on her
direction and had sought directions for
further action. It is further alleged that this
exercise was once again repeated in her
letter
dated
26.9.2000
stating
that
complying with the orders and judgments
of this court would unnecessarily burden
the State Exchequer with the salary of ten
years on forged date of birth of the
applicant.

9. Upon being noticed, Smt. Maya
Niranjan filed her counter affidavit along
with
a
discharge
application
dated
6.8.2001. In the counter affidavit, she has
stated that she relinquished charge of the
Office of District Inspector of Schools II
on 3.10.2000 but she admitted that the
enquiry report was submitted on her
orders and had been considered by the
court in its judgment. She has further
admitted that she had written the letter
dated 9.5.2000 but she explains that it was
only to bring the entire facts and
controversy
in
the
notice
of
the
government and had sought directions for
complying with the order of this court.
She has also admitted authoring the letter
dated 26.9.2000 stating that it was only a
reminder seeking direction for compliance
of the courts order and since no directions
and instructions were received, she could
not make the payment before she
relinquished charge on 3.10.2000. In
paragraph 14 she admits that District
Inspector of Schools II alone is the
Competent Authority to pay salary to the
applicant in compliance of this courts
order.

After hearing the counsel for the
applicant and Smt. Maya Niranjan, this
court found a triable case against Smt.
Maya Niranjan, and as such, in the
presence of her counsel, framed the
following charge on 11.8.2004: -

"You, Smt. Maya Niranjan, the then
District Inspector of Schools II, show
cause why you should not be tried and
punished under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act for willful and
deliberate violation and defiance of the
order and judgment dated 21.2.2000 as
affirmed in the Special Appeal."
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
61

10. In pursuance of the said show
cause, Smt. Maya Niranjan has filed her
reply to the charges along with a
discharge application dated 18.8.2004. In
her reply she has reiterated the contents of
the earlier counter affidavit, the contents
of which have already been noted above.
Apart from it, she has stated that the letter
dated
9.5.2000
was
only
a
paper
transaction between her and the Director
of Education and there was no intention
of deliberate disobedience and it was only
to seek permission for filing Special
Leave Petition and for the release of fund.
She has further stated that she was not
competent to release the current or arrears
of salary to the applicant and, therefore,
she had sought permission from the
appropriate Authority for the release of
fund.
Further,
she
says
that
the
government finally granted sanction on
22.5.2001 for compliance of the courts
order but as she had already demitted
office on 3.10.2000 she could not release
the salary and arrears. She has again
reiterated that the date of birth of the
applicant was 13.7.1934 because if it was
13.7.1944, his age on the date of
appointment of the applicant could only
be fifteen years and three months and as
such the applicant was disqualified to get
a government job. She has stated that as
the dispute related to salary of ten years,
which was to be paid from the State
Exchequer, she was unable to take
appropriate decision without seeking prior
approval and sanction of the government.
She has also stated that in view of
Government Orders dated 19.12.2000 and
19.1.1984 and also a circular of the
Director of Education dated 21.4.1993 as
the financial burden was much beyond her
powers, she had to refer it to the Director
of Education. After the arguments had
been heard and the court invited the
counsel for the opposite party to address it
on the question of sentence, the matter
was got adjourned whereafter Sri Sudhir
Agarwal, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral
raised
an
absolutely
new
argument that the District Inspector of
Schools II was not competent to release
the salary as this power vested only with
District Inspector of Schools. Finally, she
has stated that now the order of the writ
court has been complied and this court
should show its judicial grace and end the
matter.

11. Before I deal with the
arguments, it appears appropriate to
examine
the
attending
facts
and
circumstances.

12. Though the applicant was
appointed on a fixed salary as Farrash in
1959, he was given a regular appointment
as a Peon in 1973 when his Service Book
was prepared and the date of birth was
recorded therein as 13.7.1944. This date
of birth remained unchallenged for two
decades. However, the management,
while granting selection grade to the
applicant, changed the date of birth to 13th
July, 1934 and it held that the applicant
would retire on 31.7.1994. The applicant
represented his case before the District
Inspector of Schools II and also to the
Regional Deputy Director of Education,
who vide order dated 17.8.1994 directed
the District Inspector of Schools II to
enquire into the cause and take a decision.
The District Inspector of Schools II, after
giving opportunity to the Management
and after relying upon the Government
Order dated 2.5.1974 held that the date of
birth of the applicant was 13.7.1944 and
set aside the order of the Management and
asked it to continue the applicant in
service vide its order dated 29.11.1994.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
62
This order was challenged by the
Management in the writ petition, wherein
the aforesaid order and judgment was
passed. Before the learned Single Judge,
specific argument was raised that if the
date of birth of the applicant was taken to
be as 13.7.1944, he would have been only
15 years of age when appointed in 1959,
but the same was turned down by the
learned
Single
Judge.
The
specific
allegation with regard to mention of the
date of birth in the Manager's Return of
1969-70 was also considered and rejected.
Report of the enquiry conducted during
pendency of the writ petition was also
considered and rejected. These are the
main facts which have to be considered
while considering the defence set up by
the opposite party.

It would also be necessary to note the
findings and strictures recorded by the
learned Judge while dismissing the writ
petition.

The learned writ Judge, while
considering the Inquiry report and the
conduct of Smt. Maya Niranjan during
pendency of the writ petition had recorded
the following indicting strictures against
her:-

"I am not issuing any notice to the
petitioner and the District Inspector of
Schools as the learned counsel for the
respondent is more anxious for early
disposal of the writ petition. He is not
interested in any action against the
petitioner or the District Inspector of
Schools. But I consider it necessary, after
closely examining the material, to record
my strong disapproval of the crude and
undesirable
manner
in
which
the
petitioner
and
the
present
District
Inspector of School/ Deputy Director of
Education have attempted to over reach
this court."

Further,
while
considering
the
holding of enquiry and reaching a
different result, the court held:-
"The petitioner or the District
Inspector of Schools could not render the
proceedings
infructuous
by
this
impermissible method. To that extent the
learned counsel for the respondent is fully
justified in urging that they deliberately
have attempted to interference with
course of justice."

Further, it went on to hold:-
"In
any
case,
it
was
most
unsatisfactory manner of attempting to
nullify the effect of earlier order passed
by the District Inspector of Schools."

13. On the basis of the reply filed by
Smt. Maya Niranjan, it is urged that since
Smt. Maya Niranjan did not have the
power to sanction the release of salary
and arrears of the applicant, she had no
other option but to refer it to the Director
of Education.

From a perusal of the two affidavits
filed by Smt. Maya Niranjan, it is
apparent that she has taken a conflicting
stand as to the authority which is
competent to pay the salary and arrears in
compliance of this court's order. In the
counter affidavit filed along with the
discharge
application
6.8.2001,
in
paragraph 14 Smt. Maya Niranjan has
stated as follows: -

"In this regard it is further relevant
to state that Smt. Santevna Tiwari (who
has now been promoted) has also handed
over the charge of office of District
Inspector of Schools II, Alld and at
present Smt. Ferhana Siddiqui is posted
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
63
as District Inspector of Schools II, Alld
who alone is Competent Authority to pay
the salary and arrears to the applicant in
compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble
court."

14. In pursuance of this statement,
Smt. Maya Niranjan cannot be heard
saying that she did not have the Authority
or power to comply with the courts order.
In effect she says that when she was
holding the post of District Inspector of
Schools II, she was not competent, but
when Smt. Ferhana Siddiqui was holding
it, she was competent. It would be
worthwhile to examine the statute on this
point.

Payment of salary to Teachers and
Employees of aided and recognized
Intermediate Colleges is governed by U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act'). Section 3 of the
Act has fixed the time within which salary
of Teachers and Employees of aided
institutions has to be paid and that too
without any deduction. Under Section 5
of the Act the responsibility for payment
of salary to employees is laid upon the
Inspector. The liability for payment of
salary, under section 10, is with the State
Government. The Government has framed
Rules under 16 of the Act namely U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
other Employees) Rules, 1993. Under
Rule 6 the salary bill is to be submitted by
the 20th of the month to the Inspector,
which has to be verified by the Account
Officer. The over all responsibility for
payment of salary has been placed upon
the Inspector under Rule 18 of the Rules.

15. Thus, under the Act and the
Rules, the liability for payment of salary,
including arrears of salary, as mentioned
in Rule 8, lies with the Inspector. In my
opinion, this argument of the learned
counsel for opposite party no.1 has no
merit as under the Act and the Rules, she
was obliged to pay the current and arrears
of salary.

It has then been urged that without
the release of grant by the State
Government or the Director, she could not
have released the arrears or the current
salary.

16. The Institution was an aided
Institution as mentioned in Section 2 (b)
of the Act and the maintenance grant, as
mentioned in clause (c) of Section 2 had
already been approved for payment of
salary to the employees of the institution.
It is not denied that the Institution was
receiving maintenance grant from the
State. It is also not disputed that the
applicant was a permanent employee in
the Institution and prior to 13.7.1994 his
salary was being paid by the District
Inspector of Schools II from the grant
already released by the State Government.
It is nobody's case that the grant from
which the salary of the applicant was
being paid was at any point of time
withdrawn by the State Government or
the Director. Thus, there was no occasion
for Smt. Maya Niranjan to have asked the
Director or the State Government for
release of grant.

17. The learned counsel has further
urged that in view of the Government
Orders, as already noted above, Smt.
Maya Niranjan could not have released
the salary without approval of the
Director and that is why she had to write
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
64
letters to the Director seeking approval for
release of salary to the applicant.
Assuming the argument to be correct, let
us examine whether she sought approval
of the Director.

In the letter dated 9.5.2000 addressed
to the Director, there is no prayer for
release of grant or for seeking approval
for payment. In fact, in the said letter she
has stated that:-
"Special Appeal kharij ho jane se
Shri Puleshwar paricharak ko bina kaam
ke Dinak 1.8.1994 se Shasan/Vibhag ko
vetan dena padega jisese shaskiya dhan
ka durupyog hoga."
 and then she goes on to request as
follows: -
"Chunki Prakaran dus varsh tak fargi
janam tithi badha lane se sambandhit hai
jisese shasan par unaavashyak vyay bhar
badhega! Aisi istithi mein prakaran ke
sambandh main aavashyak nirnaya lekar
aavashyak karyawahi ke liye is karyalaya
ko nirdesh dene ka kasht karein taki aap
ke nirdesh ke anupalan mein aavashyak
karyawahi ki ja sake!"

Again she wrote a letter dated
26.9.2000 where she reiterates that:-
"Ukt ke sambandh mein aapko avgat
karaya ja chuka hai ki prakaran dus
varsh tak fargi janam tithi badhakar lene
se unaavashyak shaskiya vyay bhar
badhne se sambandhit hai"

and in the prayer part she states :-
"atteh aapse anurodh hai ki ukte
prakaran mein yathashighra aavashyak
karyawahi/nirdesh dene ki kripa karein,
jisese prakaran ke sambandh mein
agrattar karyawahi ke ja sake!"

18. It is apparent from a perusal of
the said two letters and the prayer quoted
hereinabove, that there is absolutely no
demand for release of grant or approval
for release of salary of the applicant. It
could also not be, because, as noted
above, under the Act and the Rules the
entire responsibility for payment of
salary, including arrears, lay with Smt.
Maya Niranjan. In fact, by the said two
letters the applicant was goading the
Director to defy and violate the order and
judgment of this court. Even the two
government orders and the Circular, on
which she has strenuously placed reliance,
cannot
be
a
valid
defence.
The
Government order dated 19th January,
1984relates to certain sanctions of 1982 to
1983. Its perusal shows that it relates to
new claims made for the first time and
does not relate to release of arrears or
current salary in the facts of this case. The
Government order dated 19th December,
2000 cannot be passed into service on the
facts of this case, as the writ judgment in
this case was delivered on 21.2.2000 and
its directions were to be carried out within
two months. The circular dated 21.4.1993
basically
relates
to
exparte
orders,
however, it stipulates that where the order
has to be complied forthwith, the grant
may be sought after following the due
procedure of law. It is admitted to Smt.
Niranjan that the procedure is to get the
salary bills from the management and
after getting it verified from the Accounts
Officer, the superior Authority may be
approached for release of grant. But she
did not follow this procedure or in fact did
not make any effort to obtain the bills
from the management. Nevertheless, the
circular basically deals with those cases
where a new demand is raised for the first
time.
In
any
view,
none
of
the
Government orders or the circular can
over ride the powers of the statute. None
of
the
aforesaid
three
documents
prohibited Smt. Niranjan from exercising
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
65
her powers under the Statute on the
directions of the court.

19. Assuming that she could not
release the arrears of salary, but there is
absolutely no reason given in her reply as
to why atleast the current salary was not
released within the time specified by the
court, in spite of the fact that the
management had reinstated the applicant
on 30.7.2000 and the bills for the current
salary was served in her office by the
Principal through letters dated 26.8.2000
and 30.9.2000. These averments in the
counter affidavit of the Principal has not
been denied. A faint submission has been
made that there was no direction of the
writ court for payment of current salary. It
is preposterous. There was clear direction
for reinstatement, which was done by the
management. Does it mean that he was to
work without salary? The Apex Court in
Lakshman Prasad Agarwal v. Syed
Mohammad Kareem 2002 (47) A.L.R.
378 has aptly said, not only the letter but
even the spirit of the order has to be seen.
Even Section 3 of the Act says the salary
has to be paid by the month even if there
was no such direction.

Therefore, this argument of learned
counsel for the applicant is also without
any basis.

20. It is also alleged that she has
sought permission to file the Special
Leave Petition but that is only an
averment and is not supported by any
documents at all on the record. During
arguments the court had specifically
asked her counsel Sri Yadav, who after
consulting Smt. Maya Niranjan, admitted
that she never sought permission to file
Special Leave Petition.

21. From the aforesaid fact, it would
be clear that Smt. Maya Niranjan was
holding the charge of District Inspector of
Schools II, when the hearing in the
aforesaid writ petition was going on and
she was the authority who directed
holding of the parallel enquiry with regard
to the date of birth of the applicant. In the
reply to the charges she has reiterated that
in case the date of birth of the applicant
was taken to be 1944, his initial
appointment would have been illegal as
the applicant would only have been 15
years old. This very argument was
considered by the learned Single Judge
but was rejected holding that the applicant
was given a fresh regular appointment as
a Peon in 1973 and which had remained
unchallenged for about two decades and
there was nothing on record to establish
that the applicant was instrumental in
alleged altering of his date of birth. The
learned Judge found that in the Manager's
Return in 1970-71 and onwards his date
of birth has remained unchanged as 1944.
The learned Judge has also taken into
account the School leaving certificate
which matched the date of birth as entered
in the Service Book. However, in spite of
these findings, Smt. Maya Niranjan is
adamant in questioning the correctness of
the judgment without challenging the
same. As already noted above, she never
approached the Director or the State
Government for filing a Special Leave
Petition against the judgment. She is also
adamant in stating that date of birth which
has been upheld by this court was forged,
even though the finding is categorically
otherwise.

22. The Apex Court in Lakshman
Prasad Agarwal (supra) has propounded
that while considering the question of
disobedience or otherwise of an order not
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
66
only the letter of the order but also its
sprit has to be considered by the court.

Further, in Anil Ratan Sarkar and
others v. Hirakh Ghosh 2002 (48) A.L.R.
121, the Apex Court while dealing with a
case where there was a clear direction, it
held :
"The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
has been introduced in the Statute Book
for the purpose of securing the feeling of
confidence of the people in general and
for due and proper administration of
justice in the country........."

It has further observed :
"............The Government is not a
machinery for oppression and ours being
a welfare State as a matter of fact be
opposed thereto. It is the peoples welfare
that the State is primarily concerned with
and avoidance of compliance with a
specific order of the court cannot be
termed to be a proper working for a State
body in terms of the wishes and aspiration
of founding Father of our Constitution."

23. The Apex Court in the case of
Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya
A.I.R. 2004 S.C. (First Supplementary)
942, while considering the nature and
power of contempt has held to the
following effect:
"Contempt proceedings serve a dual
purpose of vindication of the public
interest by punishment of a contemptuous
conduct and coercion to compel the
contemnor to do what the law requires of
him."

In the same case the court went on to
hold that :
"One who played fraud on the court,
he obstructs the course of justice and
brings
the
judicial
institution
into
disrepute."

In this very judgment, the Apex
Court has reiterated the ratio laid down by
it in re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2
S.C.C. 584, has held :

"At the same time, the court should
act with seriousness and severity where
justice is jeopardized by a grossly
contemptuous act of a party. If the
judiciary is to perform its duties and
functions effectively and true to the sprit
with which they are sacredly entrusted,
the dignity and authority of the courts
have to be respected and protected at all
costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of
our Constitutional scheme will give way
and with it will disappear the rule of
law......"

In the midst of the hearing, which
has taken place over several dates, the
learned
Additional
Advocate-General
appeared and sought time to argue, even
though the arguments had nearly finished,
in all fairness he was also given an
opportunity. He has raised a new
argument that the District Inspector of
Schools II, did not have any financial
powers and thus Smt. Maya Niranjan
could not have complied with the order
even with regard to current salary bills of
August and September, 2000, inasmuch
as, she had relinquished charge of the post
of District Inspector of Schools II in
August
itself
and
only
exercised
administrative
powers.
It
has
also
submitted by him that the Principal of the
Institution had mischievously submitted
the salary bills to her, though normally the
salary bill has to go to the District
Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and has
relied upon a letter dated 30th October,
1998. To a pointed question as to by
which Government Order the post of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
67
District Inspector of Schools II was
created he could not point to any
document on record. As has been noted
earlier the case of Smt. Maya Niranjan
throughout was that the District Inspector
of Schools II, was the competent authority
to release the salary and now she has
sworn another affidavit denying that.
Learned counsel for the Principal has
urged that the direction of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench was
to the District Inspector of Schools II,
Allahabad and thus she had no other
option but to send the salary bill to her.
He has further submitted that during the
pendency of this case Smt. Maya Niranjan
has got her payment of salary stopped to
pressurize her further. It is not denied by
the learned Additional Advocate-General
that the salary of the Principal of the
institution has been stopped. Either of the
two affidavits are false and in that case
this court would pass another order for
sending the matter to the concerned
competent court for trying her for filing a
false affidavit to her knowledge. In my
opinion, the stand taken by the learned
Additional
Advocate-General
is
not
supported by any documentary evidence
on the record. Even assuming that she
had only administrative powers, even then
as there was direction of the writ court she
should have taken prompt action when the
bills were presented to her and in that case
there was no necessity for her to have
written the two letters mentioned above.
Thus, there is no escape from the
conclusion that Smt. Maya Niranjan with
malafide attitude and defiance was
creating hurdles in the compliance of the
writ order.

24. Examining the conduct of Smt.
Maya Niranjan from any angle leaves no
room of doubt that she consciously and
deliberately embarked upon a course to
create hurdles in the execution of the
order with reprehensive defiance. The
main thrust of the argument has remained
that since the order has been complied
with now, the court should drop the
proceedings. From the facts examined
hereinabove, and also in the connected
Contempt Petition No.522 of 2001 it is
apparent that Smt. Maya Niranjan was the
Officer who set the cat among the pigeons
which resulted in willful defiance and
non-compliance of the order for four and
a half years, though it was to be complied
within
two
months.
There
is
no
explanation by Smt. Maya Niranjan why
at least the current salary was not released
or any effort in that direction was made
by her even though she held the office for
eight months from the date of the order.
In my opinion, on these facts there is no
other option for the court except to hold
her guilty.

25. Learned counsel for the
applicant has urged that Smt. Maya
Niranjan is a habitual offender and in
several cases she has taken a defiant stand
and large number of contempt petitions
are pending against her. The court
requested the counsel for Mrs. Maya
Niranjan to file affidavit stating that she
remembers about four contempt petitions
which are pending, the details of which
have been given in the affidavit. The court
sent for those files and examined two of
them. She has further said that she has
sent letters to various officers to enquire
about the details of others.

26. However, on the insistence of
the counsel for the applicant, the court
requested
the
Registry
to
supply
information as to how many contempt
petitions are pending against Smt. Maya
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
68
Niranjan. The Registry has submitted a
list of at least 67 Contempt petitions
which are pending against Smt. Maya
Niranjan. Just to refresh her memory, it
was shown to her. It spans her career.

27. During the course of hearing,
when confronted with the number of
contempt case filed against Smt. Niranjan,
Sri Yadav explained to the court that
throughout her career of 14 years, except
for a couple of months she has remained
posted at Allahabad in one or the other
capacity, and since there is easy access for
the teachers and employees of recognized
institutions to the Allahabad High Court,
the number of contempt cases are high.
This would be casting aspersion on the
Judges of this Court. Do Judges of this
Court issue notices on contempt petition
without application of mind or for mere
asking ? I am sure, Sri Yadav of his own
could not have said it, but was only
offering the explanation given by Smt.
Niranjan.

28. There is yet another facet which
is noticeable. She has remained glued to
Allahabad for the 14 years i.e. her entire
career except for couple of months. She
is quite regularly holding two posts at a
time. From the writ proceedings it is clear
that she was posted as District Inspector
of Schools and also holding charge of
Deputy Director Region. Again as Deputy
Director of the Region she is holding the
charge of Joint Director (Finance). She
has to have some magic in her, to have
weathered not only the change in so many
governments, but to be landing with two
pies in both hands, whoever rules at
Lucknow.

These facts, though are staring at the
court, but to draw any conclusions, may
be presumptive, so better lay them where
they are.

29. An apology has been given by
Smt. Maya Niranjan but the same is
conditional and does not appear to be
genuine. A apology should be an act of
real contrition or repentance. The apology
lacks both. The Apex Court in (Dr.) K.L.
Saha v. Harishanker (A.I.R. 1995 S.C.
2320) has held that there is no rule that
the court is bound to accept even an
unconditional apology. It has further went
on to hold in K.A. Mohammad v.
Parsanand (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 454) and
Arun Kshettrapal v. High Court (A.I.R.
1976 S.C. 1967) that the right to punish is
not lost by acceptance of apology.

On all these facts, in my opinion, the
apology is neither genuine, nor any
repentance is shown. She has been in
contempt in several other cases, spanning
her entire career which reflects at her
attitude towards court orders. The apology
cannot be accepted.

30. It is settled law that fine is the
rule and sentence is only in rare cases.
The fact that even though Smt. Maya
Niranjan was fresh from the indicting
strictures passed against her by the writ
court with regard to her conduct during
hearing of the writ petition, has had no
effect on her and she reiterates before the
Director and the State Government that
the enquiry ordered by her shows that the
date of birth was incorrectly recorded and
she spurs them into defying the order. In
Jaikwal v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1984 S.C.
1374).
Justice
Thakkar
very
aptly
observed:
"We are sorry to say, we cannot
subscribe to the 'slap-say-sorry and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Phuleshwar V. Smt. Maya Niranjan and another
69
forget';
school
of
thought
in
the
administration of contempt jurisdiction."

31.