IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2768 of 2009 BHASKAR SHIV RAM CHAUDHARY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 4. 15.12.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party no. 8 who is present in person pursuant to the order of the Court. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 6305 of 2009 objecting to the refixation of his pay scale without a show cause notice. Reliance was placed on certain similar orders of this Court in CWJC No. 8333 of 2009 followed in CWJC No. 4074 of 2007. The Court directed the representation of the petitioner to be considered in light of the aforesaid orders of this Court. Granting liberty to the State to examine matters to its satisfaction it was observed that if the respondents be of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid orders and was not similarly situated, they were required to pass a reasoned and speaking order to facilitate judicial review. The claims of the petitioner were to be considered in the background of the earlier orders of the Court and allowed or disallowed. If it was to be allowed, the respondents in their discretion may not have been required to set out detailed reasons for concurrence with the earlier order of the Court. But in the event of denial of relief the respondents were required to pass a reasoned order of distinction between the claim of the petitioner and the case of the others on whom he relied i.e. the two earlier orders of the Court. Opposite party no. 8 passed an order dated 27.11.2009 declining the claims of the petitioner. Whether the claim was 2 rightly denied or wrongly denied is not relevant and could not be considered in contempt proceedings. However the Court did notice that the order passed did not contain any discussion whatsoever vis a vis the earlier orders of the Court and why the petitioner was not entitled to similar treatment. Satisfied that the Opposite party no. 8 had flouted the order of the Court, on 10.11.2010 the Court directed his personal appearance to show cause as to why charges be not framed against him for flouting the orders of the Court. Opposite party no. 8 is present in person and has filed a fresh show cause. He submits that he has considered the case of the petitioner in light of the earlier orders of this Court and has passed appropriate orders allowing the representation of the petitioner. The Court is not concerned whether the claim has been allowed or rejected. The flip flop attitude of the Officer is too apparent to be overlooked and speaks eloquently of his conduct holding a position as responsible as a District Superintendent of Education. Now that a fresh order has been passed considering the representation of the petitioner in light of the earlier orders of this Court the question of initiating any contempt proceeding by framing of charges against opposite party no. 8 does not arise. There is however another aspect of the matter. The Court notices with anguish the manner in which opposite party no. 8 has conducted himself. Being a functionary of the State, his duty was to act with fairness and reasonableness by assisting the Court in dispensation of justice. All that the Court expected was that he should pass a reasoned order in accordance with the 3 directions of the Court. The two show cause filed on his behalf does not contain any explanation whatsoever why did he not comply the order of the Court at the first instance by taking into consideration the earlier similar orders of the Court. On the contrary a peculiar stand has been taken that the delay in passing the subsequent order allowing the representation was attributable to the Incharge Assistant. Then follows an apology. The apology is obviously cosmetic in nature and merits no consideration. Reiterating the mantra of apology the opposite party no. 8 states that he shall be more careful in future. From his demeanour the Court is not satisfied of a genuine remorse on his part rather it is a ruse to overcome the possible pain of punishment. In the nature of the proceeding, the opposite party no. 8 has unreasonably wasted the time of the Court by delaying disposal of the proceeding which could well have been utilized better. In (2004) 8 SCC 683 (E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association & another) the Supreme Court at paragraph 16 has observed as follows:- “16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court’s order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has 4 been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of the Court’s order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the Court’s order.” In MJC No. 1555 of 2005 (Paropkari Sharma Versus The State of Bihar & ors) in similar circumstances with regard to a much belated compliance during pendency of the contempt proceeding after passing orders contrary to the directions of the Court, this Court declined to initiate contempt proceeding but imposed costs on the Opposite party concerned. The Court notice a similar attitude on part of the opposite parties concerned in MJC No. 534 of 2005 at paragraph 9 of that order as under :- “9. The facts of the present case reveal a very sorry state of affairs which cannot be described as solitary and is recurrent in contempt matters before this Court. The order of reinstatement with consequential benefits was complied with by simple reinstatement belatedly. The opposite parties before the L.P.A. Bench did not question the order of reinstatement with consequential benefits. The order was accepted. Nonetheless, this Court had to steadfastly pursue the opposite parties why apparently in their wisdom were obstinate in their reluctance to implement the order of the writ court even while paying lip service in their repeated show cause that they had the highest regard for this Court and its orders. The Court is satisfied that the opposite parties have flouted the order of this Court.” Again at paragraph 19, 21 and 22 of MJC No. 1555 of 2005 it was noticed as follows:- 5 “19. The Court then at paragraph 12 of the order relying upon AIR 1991 Supreme Court 489 (Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vrs State of U.P. & ors) while declining to initiate contempt proceeding, nonetheless considered it proper to impose heavy costs upon the opposite parties along with certain directions for compliance. The aspect of accountability and recovery of costs personally from negligent officers was emphasized by the Supreme Court in (2004) 13 SCC 53 (State of A.P. Vs Food Corporation of India) which was also noticed. The directions of the Apex Court in (2005) 12 SCC 174 (State of U.P. ors Vs Vijay Dutt & ors) for recovery of costs from the delinquent officers who indulged in frivolous and luxury litigation was also noticed, when liberty was granted to recover the same from the erring officers. 21. It is unfortunate that the superior officials of the State Government refuse to take lessons from the past, when it is human nature to learn from the past. Taking a serious view of the matter the Court considers it proper to impose a cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the opposite parties which shall be paid by the State of Bihar to the petitioner within three weeks from today and receipt filed within the same period. The costs paid by the State shall be recoverable by it from the personal salary of opposite party no. 2. In absence of any cogent explanation by the opposite party no. 2, for which the Court granted him adequate opportunity, in passing repeated orders of varying nature contrary to the mandate of the Court, this Court further directs that all costs and expenses whatsoever incurred by the State in contesting the present proceeding shall be recovered from the salary of the opposite party no. 2. Liberty is also given to proceed departmentally should the State consider necessary. 22. The Court is disturbed by the attitude of the senior officials in not paying heed to the orders of this Court and resorting to subterfuge for non- compliance even while the order is accepted by them in principle and not challenged before the appellate forum.” The order in MJC No. 1555 of 2005 affirmed in letters patent jurisdiction was assailed by the State in SLP (Civil) Nos. 16091-92 of 2009 unsuccessfully and dismissed on 27.7.2009. 6 The Court in the aforesaid discussion considers it proper to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- on Opposite party no. 8 to be paid by him from his personal salary and deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, and the Accountant General, State of Bihar, to ensure compliance. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)