"Manifest Contempt": Patna HC Hauls Up Two Officials Of State's Law Dept For Disobeying Its Order For Reappointment Of A Public Prosecutor
Patna High Court on Monday initiated contempt proceedings against Bihar Law Secretary in-charge Jyoti Swaroop Srivastava and Joint Secretary Umesh Kumar Sharma for disobeying its order in a matter related to the reappointment of a Public Prosecutor.Single bench of Justice PB Bajanthri directed Secretary Jyoti Swaroop Srivastava and Joint Secretary Umesh Kumar Sharma, Law Department, Government...
Patna High Court on Monday initiated contempt proceedings against Bihar Law Secretary in-charge Jyoti Swaroop Srivastava and Joint Secretary Umesh Kumar Sharma for disobeying its order in a matter related to the reappointment of a Public Prosecutor.
The case related to termination of the service of the then PP of Motihari, Jai Prakash Mishra, by the government in 2019, which was held illegal and unfair in December 2021, after the victim challenged the government's action through a writ.
Accordingly, the court had directed the government to reinstate Mishra as PP.
Mishra had filed a contempt case in January this year when the law department refused to reinstate his service despite a court order within a week.
The Advocate General on instruction submitted that Joint Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar was not authorized to give an undertaking for disposal of main petition in respect of withdrawal of the impugned action of the State Government therein. He added that the State has filed a review petition against the said order.
"Even assuming that the order dated 21.12.2021 is recalled in the review petition still the intervening period from 21.12.2021 with reference to stipulated time the contempt is being committed. In this regard why the charges shall not be framed against the Secretary and Joint Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar since the file is pending as on today in the office of the Law Department."
Taking into account the submissions of the petitioner and the respondents, the Court held that order of Court, valid or irregular, it should be obeyed if contempt action is to be averted. So long as there is an order of the Court which requires compliance not only by parties but even third parties were not parties to the proceeding but have knowledge of the same they should be liable for contempt for disobedience of such order or obstructing execution of the same whether the order is valid or irregular unless order is stayed by a competent Court till it is stayed it has to be obeyed.
Quoting Halsbury, the Court said,
"The Breach of an undertaking given to the Court on the faith of which the Court sanctions a particular course of action or inaction is misconduct amounting to contempt. So also is disobedience of an injunction order of Court."
Advocate Rajiv Ranjan and Advocate Satish Chandra Mishra appeared for the petitioner in the matter. AG Lalit Kishor and Advocate Kumari Amrita appeared for the respondent.