Rakesh Giri vs Professor Roop Kishore Shashtri And Others

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J

It is apparent from the record that petitioner has already received all the promotional and service benefits and now, petitioner seeks from this Court to pass a punitive order against the respondents, who are 15 in numbers, all the members of Board Management of Gurukul Kangari (Deemed) University, Haridwar, District – Haridwar mainly basing on the communication he received. We find it appropriate to quote the entire communication, which reads as under:

The effect of this communication is that Registrar has intimated the petitioner that his entitlement for promotion and pay scale etc. shall be considered after disposal of the writ petition bearing no. 115 of 2018 pending before this Court. It was also submitted before this Court in WPSB No. 115 of 2018 on 09.01.2019 that the petitioner’s case shall be considered in accordance with law by the counsel appearing then for the University.

We are of the opinion that when the matter is pending before this Court and the Institution takes a stand that final decision shall be taken in the case of the petitioner after the disposal of the writ petition, then it would not be a criminal contempt. In this regard, we take note of the definition of “criminal contempt” which appears in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:

“2 (c)“criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

Obviously, present case is not of scandalizing or tends to scandalizing or lowering or to tend to lowering the authority of any court; or prejudicing or interfering or tending to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or creating interfere or tending to interfere with or obstructing or tending to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner does not say, in fact, opposite parties no. 1 to 15 did obstruct or tend to obstruct in administration of justice in any manner. What he says is that he was not given proper promotion at proper time and after giving promotion he retired from the post within 3 months. This action does not fall within the definition of “criminal contempt”, as defined in Contempt of Courts Act.

In that view of the matter, we do not find that any criminal contempt is made against the respondents in this case. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt proceedings are dropped against the respondents.