Court on its own motion vs Sudershan Singh, Block Development Officer, Gagret, Distt. Una, H.P., Puja Chauhan, former Block Development Officer, Gagret, District Una, H.P. at present technical expert water shad DRD at Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. and Parkash Chand, Superintendent, Office of the BDO, Gagret, Distt. Una, H.P.

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Allegation in the civil contempt is that despite the interim order, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty. It was found that Smt. Pooja Chauhan, who was formerly working as B.D.O. Gagret and Sh. Prakash Chand, Superintendent in the said office were the people responsible for the situation. On the direction issued by the Court, the respondents were present before this Court on 12.12.2011. The officers, referred to above, it appears made an attempt to justify their conduct pleading ignorance of the interim order, which on verification of the records, came out to be absolutely false and that necessitated the registration of the criminal contempt. By order dated 28.12.2011, this Court also issued a direction to the Addl. Director (Panchayati Raj) to conduct and enquire as to who are the officers responsible for the lapse caused to the State exchequer since the petitioner was directed to be paid an amount of Rs. 52,000/- towards the period he was made to wait despite the order passed by the Court. The Addl. Director (Panchayati Raj) has conducted the enquiry and has submitted a report to the effect that both Smt. Pooja Chauhan and Prakash Chand are equally responsible and that an amount of Rs. 26,000/- each is to be recovered from them. The Government is directed to process the matter further and effect the recovery since the officers referred to above, have not objected to the fact-finding report, as above.

Sh. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG, appearing for the contemnors submits that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the officers and that the whole confusion is on account of communication gap between the dealing Clerk and the officers, referred to above. We find it difficult to digest the submission. May be, it is a plausible explanation. After having been called to the Court, the officers should definitely have conducted themselves in a more responsible manner. Their submissions in the Court should have been only after proper verification of the records. Truth is the best defense and the defense to be taken at the first available opportunity and justification is the worst defense in such situations. Though belatedly, it appears from the conduct of both the officers that they have realized their mistake. It is submitted that instead of explaining the situation, they should have frankly admitted before the Court that there had been an inadvertent lapse on their part. Both the officers present before this Court submit that this will be the first and last occasion in their career and life to give rise to such a complaint. They submit that they have realized that they are government servants and they are appointed and paid to serve the people. Their master is the people. Instead the people coming after them, they should be going to the people, more particularly, since they are in Panchayati Raj Institutions. The officers are meant to serve them.

In view of the open apology thus tendered by the officers and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the officers by Shri Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and in view of the action already taken by the Additional Director (Panchayati Raj) to recover the loss, the Court reluctantly refrains from further proceeding in the matter. But the officers are warned not to have any such lapse in future. Subject to the above observations, the Cr.OPC and COPC are dismissed. Rule discharged.