eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System

(Judgment/Order in Text Format)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to
certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy
Registrar(Copying).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. - 27

Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1471 of 2005

Petitioner :- Mohd. Rizwan

Respondent :- Raja Bhanu Pratap,Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad
Petitioner Counsel :- G.C. Verma
Respondent Counsel :- Prashant Arora

Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

The present contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been preferred for non
compliance of order dated 12.4.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 4739 (S/S) of 2003.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in pursuance of order dated 12.4.2005, the
petitioner has been restored in service, but has not been paid salary of the period during which he was
kept under suspension.� Further submission is that the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary from
the date when suspension order was passed and from the date of judgment of this Court.� He further
submits that non payment of salary from 18.2.1986 to 12.4.2005 is flagrant violation of this Court.� Much
emphasis has been laid that since the suspension is not punishment and it has been revoked by the
Court, hence the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary from 18.2.1986.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that under the Fundamental Rule 54 of
the Financial Hand Book, a decision has been taken with regard to salary, which has been filed alongwith
counter affidavit.� It is further submitted that while deciding the matter with regard to payment of salary,
speaking and reasoned order has been passed and it cannot be set aside by the contempt court.
Once this Court held that after 11.3.2003, the suspension is not sustainable, then it makes out a case for
commission of contempt on account of non payment of salary from 11.3.2003. The operative order of the
judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 is reproduced as under:-
"The petitioner was arrested by the police of police station Rudauli in case crime no. 144 under Sections
363,366A/376 IPC and later on by the judgment and order dated 11.3.2003 the petitioner was acquitted in
the said criminal case.� A perusal of the suspension order reveals that the petitioner has placed under
suspension only on the ground that he was convicted in case crime no. 144 under Sections 363/366/376
IPC.� There was no justification for the authorities to place the petitioner under suspension after the
decision dated 11.3.2003 in the said case.� Once a person has been acquitted in a criminal case by the
competent court his detention in the police custody on the basis of the FIR is of no consequence and on
that ground a person cannot be continued under suspension.� The impugned suspension order dated
18.2.1986 is legally not sustainable beyond 11.3.1986, the date on which the petitioner was acquitted in
the criminal case.
Under the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 18.2.1986.� However, it will be open for the
opposite parties to initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs."
A plain reading of the aforesaid order shows that a finding has been recorded that suspension order is not
sustainable beyond 11.3.2003. Hence, prima facie, respondents should have paid salary without taking
into account the Fundamental Rule 54-B of the Financial Hand Book from 11.3.2003.
Learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, on the basis of instructions received from G.S. Niranjan,
B.S.A., Faizabad, submits that salary from 11.3.2003 shall be paid within a month. �
With regard to consequential relief for payment of salary from 18.2.1986, the application moved by the
applicant shows that this Court not only extended the consequential benefit while deciding the case by
order dated 12.4.2005. In the absence of any direction issued by this Court for payment of salary, the
respondents have not committed any act against the direction of the Court or violation of judgment. Now
the question cropped up that the respondents have right to take decision adverting to Fundamental Rule
54 of the Financial Hand Book or not, this question cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings.�
The proper course to the petitioner is to approach the appropriate Forum or prefer writ petition. The
contempt judge does not possess power to make observation with regard to decision taken by the
authorities in pursuance to statutory provisions.� It is settled law that vague order in the absence of any
direction issued by the High Court, the authority may take decision just and proper decision on their
own.� For any illegality committed by the authorities, aggrieved party have opportunity to approach the
appropriate Forum.� To such act, no proceeding under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act may be
initiated or officer may be punished.
In view of above, I am of the view that the respondents has not violated the judgment and order dated
12.4.2005 of this Court while passing the order dated 10.12.2010 subject to modification that the
petitioner shall be paid salary from 11.3.2003.
In view of above, the contempt petition losses its efficacy and is accordingly dismissed with liberty to
approach the appropriate Forum.�� Notice, if any, is discharged.

Order Date :- 19.7.2011

Rizvi
Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders
delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer