AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 3 is an officer holding the office of District Basic Education Officer, Shahjanhanpur (hereinafter referred to as ''DBEO''. Aggrieved by an order aforesaid respondent nos. 2 and 3 the petitioner filed writ petition no. 33627 of 2008 before this Court which was decided on 19.1.2011. The order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the DBEO (present respondent nos. 2 and 3) was set aside and Secretary of the Department was directed to take appropriate disciplinary action against DBEO. The writ petition was allowed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- with liberty to recover the said amount from the concerned officer.
The special appeal was preferred bearing no. 359 of 2011 by the respondent no. 3 himself which was dismissed by Division Bench on 10.3.2011 considering the material on merits.
It appears that thereafter proceedings were initiated against DBEO. In order to pressurize the petitioners otherwise, the DBEO has issued a notice dated 4.10.2011 in which again he has alleged that the Institution concerned has admitted Smt. Ram Beti in violation of Rule 173 of U.P. Education Code, 1972 though this aspect has also been considered by this Court. From the attempt and efforts on the part of the respondent no. 2 /3, it seams that he is sitting over the Judgment of this Court which, prima facie, constitute a criminal contempt. His notice, prima facie, is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction being contrary to Judgment of this Court. It appears that respondent no. 3 is trying to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners having failed in his attempt in earlier proceedings.
Let the repondent no. 2/3 should appear in person before this Court and explain as to why he may not be prosecuted to face criminal contempt besides such other proceedings permissible under law. The respondent no. 3 shall appear before this Court on 16.11.2011.
Sri. P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 stated that he shall communicate and ensure compliance of this order.
Put up this matter on 16.11.2011.
A copy of this order shall be made available to the P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 today itself for communication to the concerned respondents and compliance.
Till then, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.