\ s IN THE mOH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH ContemptCase (C) No.2oo /2011 BETWEEN gtoBlt leocli Mani Rani Yadav, aged about 60 years S/o Shri Jhuniuk Lal Yadav, Retired Head Clerk , o/o the Govemment Agrasen College Belha, Disfa-ict Bilaspur (CG)R/o Village Hanfa, P.0. Sakari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). PETITIONER AND Dr. J. N. Kesharwani, Priacipal , Goveminent Agrasen College, Belha, Disti-ict Bilaspiu- (CG). 'o ^^\ --r'S^L •<»»• RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR .--••• ^"'•"^- ^.----eONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BIIASPUR ^) S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVA.J. Contempt Case (Cj No PETITIONER Mam Ram Yadav Dr. J.N. Keshanvani iPetitioiLU/A 2^13 of the Cojigtitution pflndia r/w Section 12 the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971J None appears for the petitioner even in fhe second round. Shri R.S. Baghel, counsel for fhe respondent. (Passed on 26.8.2011} Heard on admission. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the order dated 10B1 February, 2011 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.822/11. In the petition, initiating conterupt proceedtngs, it has been stated that though an order was passed by this Court settmg aside the order of recovery dated 24.12.2010, dtrectmg deposit of Rs.58.117/- and the Court also observed that fhe petitioner is entitled to tlie said amount vpith mterest @6 %,-per annum, subject to verLGcation of facts, fhe said amoixit has not been refunded tiU date. . Leamed counsel for the respondent, referring to averments made m. the retum, stated tliat the authority has acted in compliance of the order of tfae Court. He submit«''that after gotng through 'the K:<53:SiS ii ^••-^s^^ ...y^-i^" -2- order passed by fhis Court and taking into consideration that this Court has directed refund of amount along wifh interest (81, 6% ver annum, subject to verification of facts, fhe a.uthorih7 proceeded to niake inquir\? for verification of facts as directed by fhis Court. Leamed counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has construed the order of fhe Coiirt that fhe question of refund would arise only when it is found. upon verification of facts whether fhe petitioner had obtained excess saiary paid T.o hto'i earUer. He further submits fhat the respondent authont.y has taken up fhe matter for tnqutry on specific allegation that fhe petitioner had obtained excess payments on certaiu fraud and misrepresentation. He submits fhat in this view of tbe matter, the authority has proceeded strictly tn corapliance of fhe order of fhe Court to fhe best of his i-mderstanding and ability and there was no intention whatsoever on the part of fhe respondent authority to Qout or disobey the order or (he Court. He further submits that the raatter is stfll pending and appropriate orders would be passed by the authority in fhe matter after holdlng proper inqi.iiry in fhe matter. He also submits ttiat subsequenfly, an order of recovery has been passed on 21.7.2011, tn which the petitioner has been made liable for recovery on the ground that the petitioner had fuU knowledge fhat he is not entifled for pa^-ment pf higher salary, yet he received this amount. An order has been passed by fhis Coixrt on 10ttl Febniary, 2011 settii^ aside the order of recovery dated 24.12.2010 directini deposit of Rs.58,117/-, on account of excess payment to the /' ^s^'"^ -3- petitioner. The Court ordered that fhe petitioner is entitled to the am.ount with interest @6% per annum subject to venfication of facts. Liberty was reserved to the respondent fhat if excess payment has been niade on account of raisrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or' that the employee had fhe knowledge that fhe payment received by him was in excess, fresh orders may be issued on verification of lacts, after afibrdins opportiinity of hearing *to fhe petitioner. The order of this Court clearly reqiiired first, the amount recovered, to be refunded. The observation that the petitioner is entitled to amount with interest & 6% per annum., subject to veri&cation of facts, only meant t.o raake basic verification as per the records in the matter of raakui^ payment of fhe amount which has been recovered and not to withhold the amount tiU ttie inqiury as envisaged in para-8 of the order. The authorily has completely misconstrued the order of the Coi.irt. The payment to which the petitioner was entltled was not made to hun as per fhe order passed by this Court and instead, the aufhority proceeded to hold an inquiry against fhe petitioner by giving an opportunily of hearing and has also passed an order. This is highly objectionable. The respondent has passed the order by completely misconstruing fhe order of the Court. The action of respondent, therefore, amoints to disobedience of the order of fhe Court. However, considering the submission niade by learaed counsel for the respondent; after going through the reply and considering fhat the words "subject to veriScation of facts" were construed by (he aufhority as if permitting it to lu-st hold an ^- inquny and then inake refdhd, I aia not inclined to punish the ^' respondent. It has been stated before fhe Court that. now fhe orders of recoverv has been issued against fhe petitioner. 5. The petitioner would be at liberh7 to challenge the order of recovery which has now been passed. 6. The respondent is wamed of his conduct. Due amount of care and caution is required to be exercised while actuig in compliance of the order of fhe Court. The respondent, to say fhe least, has acted in casual manner, without properly understanding the order of fhe Court. It is foiind that it has nowhere been stated in the reply fhat any legal opinion was sought in the matter. The efi'ect of fhe action is (hat even though the petitioner was first entitled to be refunded before mitiation of any proceedmg of recoveiy as dtrected by fhis Court in para-8 of its order, fhe amount was withheld and mquiry was initiated. 7. The contempt petition is being HnaUy closed with the waming not to repeat this conduct in future. Sd/- Manindra iviohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen ItSS^aaui.