IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICArURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 CONTEMPT PETmON N0. /^^ /2008^ PETITIONER -*y RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR 318818 B®! Gauri Shankar Soni, aged about SOyears, S/o. Dasharath Prasad Soni, at present working as a Branch Manager, DLirg - Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Deori Branch, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, District Durg (C.G.) 1 VERSUS Shri Dhananjay Kumar, aged about 55 years, Presently working jasa Chair-man, DUrg -Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Head Office Rajnandgaon, Near Mundra Kunj, G.E. Road,Rajnandgaon(C.G.) .t'S'''""'^?1*^.. CONTEMPT PETITON UNDERARTICLE 2150F THE ONSTITUTION OFINDIAREADWrTH SECTION 120FTHE A "-' . '• '.; .'..' '. ;.";' :'...','", • .:-'- "•••.'•':'.. '.'.:•.'•. . '.: . . '•'''; ' " <SONTEMPTOFTHEGOtlRTSACT.1971 ,v HiGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bieShri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. j. PETiTIONER RESPONDENT/ CONTEMNOR CONTEMPT PETITiON N0.152/2008 Gauri Shankar Soni versus Shri Dhananjay Kumar eOMTEMPT FETiTION UNDER ARTICLE213 OF THECONSTITUTiON OF INDIA READWrrHSECTION 12 OF THECONTEMPT OF THE COURTS ACT. 1S7T ^ Present: - Shri Gauri ShankarSoni, petitioner in person. Shri P.S.Koshy, counselforthe respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th February, 2011 ) This contemptpetition has been flied by the petitioner aiieging wilifui disobedience and vioiation of order dated 8/1/08 passed in W.P.(S) No.44/08 (Gauri Shankar Soni v. Chairman, Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Kajnanagaon). 2. The petitioner submitted thatvide orderdated 18/12/07, he was transferred from Deori branch to Mahud Machandur branch which was ^ chaiienged byfiling a writ petition i.e W.P.(S) No.44/08. The matter listed for hearing on 8/1/08, on which, after hearing thecounsel forthe petitionerandthe counsei for the caveator, this Court ordered that in the meantime, status quo as obtained on that day shaii be maintained. According to the petitioner, as he was on medicai ieave, he submitted certified copy ofthe order along with ietter dated 10/1/08 (Annexure C/2) to the Chairman ofthe bank stating that as the petitioner ison medicai leave, the petitioner woutd submit his joining in branch - Deori, after becoming fit on theadvice of the doctor. Thereafter, as per cfoctor's advice, \] 2 s^. ,..): petitioner joined on 12/1/08 and discharged his duty and sent a letter to the respondent / contemnor along with copy of order dated 8/1/08 passed by this Court informing that he has joined his duty on 12/1/08 at 10:30 AM after avaiiing 23 days medical ieave. He also informed that he is continuing to hold the charge of the branch-Deori as Branch Manager and ali the keys and documents are in his possession. it is the aliegation of the petitioner thaf the petitioner was informed that he has been already relieved from the post of Branch Manager of Deori branch on the day, he received the transferred order i.e. 19/12/07 and therefore, he cannot continue in the branch at Deori. Thereafter, on 14/01/08, the petitioner was suspended on the aiiegations that he unauthorisediy entered Deori branch and tampered with dispatch register and aiso put signature in the attendance register. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a ietter on 23/1/08 (Annexure C/5) informing that there is an interim order in his ravour and he is not reiieved, as no one in his piace has been posted. 3. The petitioner argued that on the date, interim order was passed by this Court, he was continuing to hoid charge bf office as Branch Manager of Deori Branch and was not relieved because he had already proceeded on leave and he had keys and documents in his possession. He submits that the respondents, in order to overreach the orders and proceedings of this Court, have created false document of reiieving, though there was no actual reiieving of the petitioner tiil the date, interim order was passed by this Court on 8/1/08. He further submits that the respondent authorities instead of compiying with the order of this Court and aiiowing the petitioner to continue in Deori branch, have acted with gross contempt in harassing the petitioner by making ailegations of unauthorised entry and tampering with records and further, his suspension. 1^ •~s(' :} 4. The petitioner has further argued that the transfer order dated 18/12/07 was served upon him on 19/12/07 and thereafter, he had proce^ded on medical ieave by submitting an application on 20/12/07. it is aiso submitted that the story of the respondent that the petitioner was relieved on 19/12/07 and another person took over the charge of the office of Branch Manager is a false, afterthought and cooked-up story. The petitioner argued that from perusal ofthe dispatch (Annexure RJ/1), it is reveaied thatthere are certain interpolations in the date of the relieving letter and the document shownat serial No.1346 of the dispatch register i.e. just above the entry made in respeci of ihe letter, said to be issued to the petitioner, bears date 20/12/07. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the document has been fabricated. He submits that infact, no such letter dated 19/12/07 was ever issued nor was petitioner reiieved pursuant to such a ietter but the respondents have fabricated the documenis and made faise statements before the Court that the petitioner was relieved from Deori branch. He further submits that the story of reiieving the petitioner is liable to be disbeiieved because certain procedureprescribed in the guidelines (Annexure C/4) is required tobe foilowed which was also not done, meaning thereby that the reiieving of the petitioner nevertook piace and therefore, he continued in the branch at Deori. He has aiso submitted that in the dispatch register at serial N0.1347, relieving ietter is shown to have been sent by registered post but no receipt has been produced. On the other hand, receipt of speed post has been produced. Further, accordingto the dispatch register, expenses of registered post is shown to be Rs.41/- whereas the receipt of speed post is for Rs.25/'-. He further submits that even though the letter is said to have been issued by registered post, thenumber of receipt of having sent by registered post is not \ :i>^^// "%^ '^"'"'1^' ''^K,J.-,-.sfy'^ mentioned whereas in other cases, it has been so mentioned which shows that the story of letter having been sent by registered post is afterthought. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that this Court directed status quo prevailing as on 8/1/08 to he maintained and on that day, the petitioner was no ionger continuing in Deori Branch as he was already reiieved. He submits that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 18/12/07 and received the order on 19/12/07. Vide ietter dated 19/12/07, second ofncer of Deori branch was instructed to take overthe charge of the office from the petitioner and relieve him on the same day. The copy of the letter was endorsed to thepetitioner which he received on 19/12/07. in the endorsement dated 19/12/07, the petitioner was instructed to get relieved and reportto his new piace of posting at Mahud Machandur. The petitioner left the branch on 19/12/07 without taking reiieving letterdated 19/12/07. Therefore, the same was served upon the petitioner by registered postand through courier and the petitioner received the same on 22/12/07 and 24/12/07 respectively. He further submits that the petitioner before ieaving Deori branch, made entry in the dispatch register and carried withhim, ieave appiication dated 20/12/07 whichwassentto the bank subsequentiy. Nextsubmission is that new incumbent - Ghanshyam Ojha transferred from Dondi Lohara branch to Deori Branch, reported on 20/12/07 and assumed the ofnce of Deori branch on the same dav and same was intimated to the head ofRce vide letter dated 20/12/07. Therefore.on the date, interim order was passed by this Court l.e. 8/01/08, the petitioner stood relieved and new incumbent had already joined Deori branch. An opinion was sought in which, it was opined that as the petitioner was relieved priorto 8/1/08, v^y\ %g?ass» s ^ his post stands reiieved and ifany reliever has taken the charge ofthe petitioner, then this posting continues until further orders. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner himself acted in gross vioiation of order dated 8/1/08 of this Court. On that day, Ghanshyam Ojha was the Branch Manager of Deori branch and assumed the office on 20/12/07 but the petitioner acted uniawfuliy and entered ihe premises of *" the branch at Deori, even before office hours, forcibly entered his name into the / . "' muster roii/attendance register and made unauthorised entries to show that he is continuing as Branch n/lanager at Deori branch. He aiso made unauthorised entries in the dispatch register in order to show dispatch of his joining ietter along with fitness certificate dated 12/02/08. 7. it is not disputed by the parties that during the pendency of this contempt petition, the writ petition itself was dismissed as withdrawn butthe petitioner has preferred a writ appeai No.292/10 against the order of dismissai which is pending. The petitioner also states that against the order of suspension, he has preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.327/09 which is still pending. 8. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 18/12/07. He admits that this order was served on him on 19/12/07. This is clear from his own representation dated 10/1/08 (Annexure C/2) in which he mentioned transfer orderdated 18/12/07, received on 19/12/07. Respondent on affidavit has stated that on 19/12/07, a ietter No.Karmik-2317/07 was issued and second officer of Deori branch was instructed to take over the charge and to relieve the petitioner and the petitioner was relieved on that very day. Thereafter, the new incumbent Ghanshyam Ojha reported for duty on 20/12/07 and assumed the office on the ••-I-.. .^ same day as Branch Manager. The appiication for grant of leave, assuming it to be correct, was made by the petitioner on 20/12/07 which is ciear from Annexure C/6 aiong with medical certificate dated 20/12/07. Memo dated 19/12/07 (Annexure C/7) issued by the Chairman shows that S.S. Banjare who was workina in the same branch was directed to take over the charae and reiieve the petitioner. An order was also passed on 18/12/07 (document -A) by which one Ghanshyam Ojha, Branch Manager of branch - Dondi Lohara was posted in branch - Deori and directed to get immediateiy relieved and assume joining. The respondents have placed on record, the receipt ofdispateh as part ofdocument A. The respondents have placed on record letter dated 20/12/07 of Ghanshyam Ojha informing the Chairman that he has assumed charge of Deori branch on 20/12/07. Letter dated 19/12/07 under dispatch No.1347, placed on record as part of document-A, shows that the petitioner was informed that he has been relieved on 19/12/07 and he is required tosubmit hisjoining to his new piace of posting. ^l 9. From the aforesaid averments and documents, it is found that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 18/12/07 and on 19/12/07, a iocal orficer posted in the same branch relieved the petitioner and a letter dated 19/12/07 was aiso is^ued. Thereafter, the new incumbent to the office, joined on 20/12/07. Though an attempt has been made by the petitioner to estabiish that no relieving took placeon 19/12/07 and that the very dispatch of letter dated 19/12/07 is highiy suspicious in view of certain over writings and inconsistent entries in the dispatch register, from the reply of the respondents aind severai documents, which has been placed on record, it is revealed that the locai ofricer at Deori had relieved the petitioner on 19/12/07 itseif and its successor assumed z ^ the charge on the next date i.e. 20/12/07. VVhetherthe relieving ofthe petitioner was legal or iilegat and in accordance with the guideiines (Annexure C/4) is one aspect. However, it is difRcuit for this Court to come to the conclusion that on 8/1/08, the petitioner was stiii continuing in the branch at Deori. Therefore, l am unabie to hoid that theorder ofthis Court has been vioiated. The rule istherefore discharged and the contempt petition is accordinglydismissed. ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge ___ Deepii