Jang Bahadur Singh VS. Baij Nath Tiwari

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.

HELD:The 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 v. S. N. Shukla, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 422, Reg, v.

Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36, Arthur Reginald Perors v. The King

[1951] A.C. 482, 488, Re : Shri Mehra A.I.R. 1962 M.P. 72;

Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen [1961] 3 S.C.R. 460; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., v. Kaushal Bhan, [1960] 3

S.C.R. 227; Tata Oil Mills Co., Ltd.. v. The Workmen, A.I.R.

1965 S.C. 155; The King v. Parmanand, A.I.R. 1949 Pat. 282;

D. J. Shield v. Ramesam, A.T.R. 1955 Andhra Pradesh, 156 referred to.

135

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Jang Bahadur Singh VS. Baij Nath Tiwari

PETITIONER: JANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs.

RESPONDENT: BAIJ NATH TIWARI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S.

SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION: 1969 AIR 30 1969 SCR (1) 134

CITATOR INFO : RF 1974 SC 642 (6)

R 1988 SC2118 (5)

ACT: Contempt of Court-Writ Petition pending to quash suspension order-Stay vacated--Service of charge-sheet in respect of disciplinary proceedings-If amounts to contempt.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 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. ...

See the full content of this document

---