Keshfur Rehman vs R.R. Prasad, Director General of Police and Others

Vikramaditya Prasad, J.—This contempt arises out of the order dated 24.3.2003 passed in WP (S) No. 5817 of 2003, whereby the following order was passed :--

"After filing an appeal, the departmental authority shall dispose of the same after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to be heard within a period of one month from the date of the filing of the appeal."

Mr. R.R. Prasad, DGP, Mr. D.N. Pandey, DIG, Koyla Anchal Range, Bokaro, and Mr. Anil Palta, S.P., Bokaro, have been made opp. parties in this case.

Obviously, this order was for the appellate authority and not for the other authorities of the Department. Therefore, the DGP, opp. party No. 1 and S.P., Bokaro, opp. party No. 3, as they were not the appellate authority, should not have been made opp. parties because this contempt cannot lie against them. The opp. party No. 2, Sri D.N. Pandey, has been made opp. party by name. The show cause on behalf of Sri Pandey has -been filed. In paragraph No. 9, it has been stated that he joined the post on 10.7.2003 and passed the appellate order on 4.8.2003 within one month from the date of his joining. As this opp. party passed the order within one month from the date of his joining despite the pendency of the appeal before the DIG. Koyla Anchal Range, Bokaro, he does not appear to have not complied with the, order of the Court, so far as period of such compliance is concerned, within that period of one month. Had it been a case that he would have been the DIG, Koyla Anchal Range. Bokaro, at the relevant time when the appeal was filed and he would not have disposed of the appeal, he would have been responsible for contempt. Unfortunately, the then DIG, who was the DIG Koyla Anchal Range, Bokaro, at the relevant time when the appeal was filed, which according to the petitioner, was filed on 28.5.2003, has not been made opp. party. So on this Court and for not passing the order within one month as directed by the Court, the opp. party No. cannot be held guilty.

The second aspect is whether the order is a reasoned one. It appears that the contempt application was filed on 29.7.2003 and the departmental appeal was disposed of by Annexure-A on 4.8.2003, i.e., within a period of five days from the date of filing of the contempt, in the following terms :--

"Yukt Bibhugia Karyabahi Se Sambandhi Appeal Abhyaabedan Par Police Adhikashak, Bokaro, Se Prapt Kandikasar Tiponni Aybang Bibhaagia Karyabahi Sanchika Ka Sabdhani Purbak Abolokan Kiya Gaya. Abokolanprant Paya Geya Ki Appeal Tathyahin Hai, Aaropit Awa. Ni. Ka Acharan Awang Karm Ek Police Padhadhikari Se Apekchit Acharan Ke Biporit Paya Gaya Hai. Jiske Karan Sthaniya Star Par Bidhi Babostha Prabhabit Hava. Atta, Appal Abhyaabedan Aswikrit Kiya Jate Hai."

Rule 852 of the Police Manual prescribes for the procedures to be adopted for disposal of appeal. It does not make any provision for hearing the appellant. But the order out of which the contempt arises was to give an opportunity to the petitioner-appellant to be heard. The impugned order does not show that this part of the order of the Court was also given effect to, as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard. If the order out of which this contempt arises gives a direction for hearing the appellant, while disposing of the appeal, is not in conformity to the rules as given in the Police Manual and the appellate authority did not like to hear him, then the only course open to opp. party was to challenge that order in appeal. If they did not go in appeal against that order, they had to comply with that.

The learned counsel for the opp. parties submitted that after filing of the appeal, the appeal was decided without hearing the appellant as there was no provision in the Police Manual that the appellant should be heard personally.

This argument in the circumstances discussed above cannot be appreciated. Had the appellant not presented himself before the appellate authority after notice, then his right under the orders would stand defeated and the appellate authority would have disposed of the appeal without hearing him. Therefore, it goes without saying that in the event of filing of the appeal, the petitioner-appellant was also to be heard as per the order. For the aforesaid reason, it appears that this part of the order has not been complied with. Therefore, there appears to be violation of the specific order of the Court. But as the opp. party No. 2 jointed later on in the month of July and passed this order, he is to be blamed for non-compliance of the order, but he cannot be held guilty for not disposing of the appeal within a period of one month, but that DIG, who was in seisin of the appeal at the relevant time, was not.

The learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2 submits that the appellant was not heard, because of misconstruction by him vis-a-vis Police Manual Rules and therefore, he says that the opp. party No. 2 has not willfully disobeyed the order of the Court and that he is ready to hear the appellant and pass order according to the directions given in the Court''s order.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this contempt application is disposed of. The opp. party No. 2 should comply the aforesaid undertaking given by the learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2 within 15 days. The appellant will appear before the opp. party No. 2 on 25.9.2003.

With the aforesaid obsections/ directions, this contempt application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the opp. party No. 2 for communication.