minal Appeal No 187 of 1965
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 3 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc
Contempt Case No 7 of 1965
U P Singh and D N Mishra for the appellant
Sobhagmal Jain section P Singh and J P Goyal for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
The appellant is the manager of Hiralal Memo rial Intermediate College Bhaurauli in the District of Azamgarh
The respondent was the principal of the College
On December 14 1963 the respondent drew from the Boys  Fund of the college two sums of Rs 189 for payment of scholarship to the two Harijan students for the period from May to November 1963
On withdrawal of the monies he sent to the Harijan
Tatha Samaj Kalyan Adhikari a form called Form No 14 to the Adhikari containing a receipt of the scholarship signed by the two students and counter signed by himself
The Adhikari wrote to the appellant informing him of the complaint
made by the students that in spite of the submission of Form No 14 they had not received the scholarship
On March 24 1964 the District Inspector of Schools visited the College and on finding that the scholarships had not been paid called for an explanation for nonpayment
On April 10 1964 the appellant forwarded the Inspector s letter of March 24 to the respondent and asked him to give an explanation
The respondent sent a reply stating that payments were made to the students on March 31 1964 and that the delay in payment was due to the absence of the students from the College and the fact that the register on which receipts had to be obtained were with the Inspector from December 8 1963 to March 10 1964
A meeting of the managing committee was called on April 14 1964 to consider the Inspector s letter and the respondent s explanation
According to the appellant on April 19 1964 the managing committee met and resolved to take disciplinary action against the respondent
On April 21 1964 the appellant passed an order suspending the respondent pending the inquiry
The order stated that it was passed in exercise of the power vested in the appellant by the rules and the resolution of the managing committee dated April 19 1964
A copy of the resolution was attached
On April 24 1964 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad praying for appropriate writs quashing the order of suspension
He alleged that the appellant had no authority to pass the order and that the order was made in bad faith
On the same date the respondent obtained an ex parte order from the High Court 136 staying the operation of the suspension order
On July 22 1964 after hearing both the parties the High Court vacated the stay order
On December 25 1964 the appellant served a chargesheet on the respondent
Charge No IV was as follows The scholars hip amounts of Rs 21625 and Rs 21625 of Sri Karam Deo Ram and Sri Jai Raj Ram students of Class XII for the months of May 1963 to November 1963 were withdrawn by you on 14 12 1963 but the same have neither been disbursed to the students concerned nor refunded to the Treasury
Thus you are guilty for misappropriation of the aforesaid amount
Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge  1
Letter of DJO dated 24 3 1964
Letter of HWO dated 31 3 1964
Statement of students
Thus it is evidently clear that you being entrusted with the aforesaid money have dishonestly misappropriated the amount for your own use and the poor students have been put to loss by your misconduct
As such you have committed criminal breach of trust dis honestly punishable under sec
406 IPC The respondent was required to submit his explanation by January 24 1965
Instead of submitting his explanation the respondent filed a petition in the High Court asking for committal of the appellant for contempt of court
His contention was that the aforesaid charge was the subject matter of inquiry in the pending writ petition and that as the respondent had launched a parallel inquiry in the matter he had committed contempt of court
The High Court accepted the contention and held that the respondent was guilty of contempt of court and directed him to pay a fine of
Rs 500 and costs
The respondent has filed this appeal after  obtaining special leave from this Court
The conditions of service of the teachers in the College are governed by sec
16 G of the Intermediate Education Act 1921
UP Act 11 of 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder Regulations 31 to 45 provide for punishment inquiry and suspension
The Committee of Management is the punishing authority
The punishments of dismissal removal discharge and reduction in rank and dimunition in emoluments require prior approval of the Inspector
If it is decided to take disciplinary action against an employee the inquiry is made by an authority appointed by the committee
The ground on which it is proposed 137 to take action is reduced in the form of definite charges
The charges are communicated to the employee who is required to submit a written statement of his defence
If the employee or the inquiring authority so desires an oral inquiry takes place
The inquiring authority then makes a report
On receipt of the report the punishing authority takes its decision on the case
On receipt of the decision of the committee the Inspector gives his decision
The Committee then implements the decision of the Inspector
The Regulations indicate definite time limits for the communica tion of the charge submission of the written statement of defencecompletion of the inquiry the making of the report by the inquiring authority the taking of decisions by the punishing authority and the Inspector and the implementation of the decision
Pending the inquiry and final orders the employee may be suspended by the committee
The power of suspension may be exercised by the manager if it is delegated to him under the rules of the institution
The employee under suspension is paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to half his pay
The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the em ployee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him
The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a court
But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action
The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority
The civil or criminal court has no such power
The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding
The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings
If he obtains a stay order a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court
In the absence of a stay order the disciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers
An authority holding an inquiry in good faith in exercise of the powers vested in it by statutory regulations is not guilty of contempt of court merely because a parallel inquiry is imminent or pending before a court
In Tukaram Gaokar vs section ATShukla1 this Court held that the initiation and continuance of proceedings for imposition of penalty on the appellant for his alleged complicity in the smuggling of gold under sec
112b of the Sea did not amount to a contempt of court though his trial in a criminal court for offences under sec
135b of that Act and other similar offences was imminent and identical issues would arise in the proceedings before the customs authorities and in the trial before the criminal court
This Court observed 1  138 To constitute contempt of court there must be involved some act done or writing published calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt or to lower his authority  or something calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the court  Reg
vs Gray1 Arthur Reginald Perors vs The King2
The customs officers did nothing of this kind
They are acting bona fide discharging their statutory duties under sections 111 and 112
The power of adjudicating penalty and confiscation under those sections is vested in them alone
The criminal court cannot make this adjudication
The issue of the show cause notice and proceedings there under are authorised by the Act and are not calculated to obstruct the course of justice in any Court
We see no justification for holding that the proceedings amount to contempt of court
 In Re Shr Mehra3 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the bona fide holding of a departmental inquiry on a charge of misappropriation against a government servant did not amount to contempt of court merely because a criminal prosecution on the same charge was pending against him
A fortiori the inquiry cannot amount to contempt court if it is not a parallel investigation on a matter pending before a court see Saibal Kumar Gupta V B K Sen4
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kaushal Bhan5 and Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd vs The Workmen6 the Court held that a domestic inquiry by the employer into the charges against a workman was not vitiated because it was held during the pendency of a criminal trial into the same or similar charges
It may be desirable to stay the domestic inquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case but the inquiry could not be characterised as mala fide merely because it was held during the pendencY of the criminal proceedings
In The King vs Parmanand7 a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the giving or withholding of consent to the withdrawal of the prosecution under sec
494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a judicial act and it was improper for the court to permit withdrawal of the prosecution on orders of the Government without making any attempt to exercise its discretion that the power to grant adjournments of pending proceedings under section 344 of the Code and the power to call for records in A pending or completed case under secs
423 435 of the 1 1900 2QB36
2 1951 AC482488
3 AIR 1962 MP72
4  5 1960 3SCR227
6  7 AIR 1949 Pat 282
139 Code and the general rules and circular orders were vested in the court and not in executive officers
Those questions do not arise for decision in this case
Narayan J in a separate judgment observed that in an inquiry with regard to a matter which is sub judice was bound to interfere with the even and ordinary course of justice and a parallel inquiry of this kind would amount to opening the door for contempt
In that case the executive officers were issuing orders to the criminal court calling for its records and asking it to adjourn the proceedings and to consent to the withdrawal of the prosecution and on those facts it might be possible to hold that the officers were guilty of contempt
But we cannot agree with the broad observation that a parallel inquiry on a matter pending before a court necessarily amounts to a contempt of court
We think that an inquiry by a domestic tribunal in good faith into the charges against an employee does not amount to contempt of court merely because an inquiry into the same charges is pending before a civil or criminal court
In D J Shield vs
Ramesam 1 the Andhra Pradesh High Court agreed with the observations of Narayan J but the decision is distinguishable because the court found that the inquiry by the Collector into the charges against a sub magistrate was not a parallel inquiry and did not amount to contempt of court
After the High Court vacated the stay order the appellant bona fide believed that the disciplinary proceedings could be continued
The service of the charge sheet on the respondent was made in good faith and was not intended or calculated to interfere with the court proceedings
We are inclined to think that the respondent instituted the contempt proceeding with ulterior motives
He was under suspension and was drawing half pay for doing nothing
His intention was to delay the inquiry into the charges against him
Having failed to obtain the stay order he launched the contempt proceeding so that the inquiry might be indefinitely held up
In view of the order under appeal he has successfully delayed the inquiry so far
In the result we allow the appeal set aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated August 3 1965 and dismiss the petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act
YP Appeal allowed 1 A 1


Summary:
Pending an inquiry into the conduct of the respondent Principal of a college in respect of certain allegations the respondent was suspended
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court to quash the order of suspension and also obtained ex parte stay against the continuation of the inquiry
The ex parte stay was vacated
Thereafter the appellant manager of the college served a charge sheet on the respondent and called upon him to explain the allegations
The respondent moved the High Court for holding the appellant guilty of contempt of Court
The High Court held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court
In appeal this Court
HELDThe appeal must be allowed
An authority holding an inquiry in good faith in exercise of the powers vested in it by statutory eegulations is not guilty of contempt of Court merely because a parallel inquiry is imminent or pending before a Court
The issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the employee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed to take action against him
The same issue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in a Court
But the pendency of the court proceeding does not bar the taking of disciplinary action
The power of taking such action is vested in the disciplinary authority
The civil or criminal court has no such power
The initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice in the pending court proceeding
The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings
If he obtains a stay order a wilful violation of the order would of course amount to contempt of court
In the absence of a stay order the dirciplinary authority is free to exercise its lawful powers
137D G In this case after the stay order was vacated by the High Court the appellant bona fide believed that the disciplinary proceedings could be continued and the charge sheet was served in good faith and was not intended or calculated to interfere with the court proceedings
Rather the respondent instituted the contempt proceedings with ulterior motives to indefinitely hold up the inquiry after having failed to obtain the stay order
139 E F Tukaram Gaokar vs section N Shukla   Reg vs Gray  Arthur Reginald Perors vs The King  488 Re  Shri Mehra AIR 1962 MP 72 Saibal Kumar Gupta vs B K Sen   Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kaushal Bhan   Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd vs The Workmen AIR 1965 SC 155 The King vs Parmanand AIR 1949 Pat 282 D J Shield vs Ramesam ATR 1955 Andhra Pradesh 156 referred to 135