JANG BAHADUR SINGH versus BAIJ NATII TIWARI

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 26-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

134 
JANG BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
BAU NATII TIWARI 
April 26, 1968 
(S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. 
BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Con.Je1npt of Courf--Writ Petition pending 
to 
quash 
suspetisiori 
order--Star ,·acated--Service of charge-sheet in respect of disciplinary 
procccdln.gs-··l! amounts to conte111pt. 
Pending an inquiry into the conduo~ of 
th~ rcspondent-PrincioaJ of 
a college in respect of certain allegations. the respondent w1ts suspended. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High 
Court to 
qua.'11 
the 
order or suspension. and al.so obt;1incd ex-parte stay ag:tin'it 
the 
conti-
nuation of the inquiry. 
The ~.t-parte slay 'W'as vacated. 
Thereafter the 
appcllant-m.anager of the colJegc. served a charge-')hcet on the resoondcnf 
and caUed upon him to explain 1hc allegations. 
The rcc;pondent moved 
the High Cwn for holding the appellant quilty of contempt of C.ourt. 
the High Court held 
the 
appeilant 
guilty 
of contempt 
of 
Cuurt. 
Jn appeal. thi' Court. 
HELD : The appeal mu't he allowed. 
An authority holding an joq11iry in 
Aood faith in e:s::crcisc of 
the 
po"''crs '~tc<l in it by statutory r'c):!:u;a1ions is not guil!y of contempt of 
Court. mercly because a parallel inquiry is imminem: or pendio2 before 
a Court. 
The issue in the di~iplinary Ofoceedings is .,.,.hcther the eo1· 
ployee is guilty of the charge' on which it ;, proposed to take acli~n 
again:.! him. 
The same is~ue may arise for decision in a civil or criminal 
proceeding pending in a Court. 
But the pendency of the court procred-
io~ does ncr. bar the taking of dio,ciplinary action. The power of taking 
~u.ch action is vested in the disciplinary authority. 
The civil or criminnl 
court ha'> nu -.uch power. 'Ibe in.itiati'on and continuation of disciplinary 
proceedings in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or interfere .. ,,,i.:h 
the course ot justice in the pending cow-t orocttdin):!:. The employee jc; 
free 1n mov~ the court for an order re.straining th~ continuance of 
the 
dis.cipliniiry proceedings. 
If ht" obtains a stay order, a wilful vio1ati0:1 
of the order would of cour.c amount to contempt L\f c,Jurt. 
Jn 
th~ 
ahsence of a .;,tay order r:hc dirciplinary authority is frC'C to e'.'(erci.,c ii-; 
lawful nowm. [1370-G] 
In this case, ~-tftcr the stav order "'ac; vac;llcd bv thr Hi~h Courr. th<.> 
appellant bona fide believed thar the disciplinan· procccdinl?s 
could 
he 
cootinued. and the char.i~c-shcct wao,; served in ~ood fai!h and w::s not 
intended or calculated 10 interfere wilh the court procet.-dinl!". 
Ralhcr 
the respondent institult'd the cort.ernPt procccdin!!s 
\~·ith uflcrior moti\"t•<-, 
to indefinitdv hold up the inquirv after ha,·ine failed 10 obtain thC" 
~1:1\' 
order. [ D<J E-FJ 
Tukc1ran1 
Gaokar 
"· 
S. 
N. 
Shukla, 
rt968] 
J 
S.C.R. 
422. 
Rt"C!. v. (;ray. [1900] 2 Q.B. 36. Ar1'111r Rrgino!d Peror.,· v. 
Thr 
K;nf'!. 
[19511 A.C. 482. 488. R, ·. S/tri ,\fchra A.l.R. 1962 
M.P. 72: Saihal 
Kumar G11pra v. B. K. Sm [19611 3 S.C.R. 460: Delhi C/orh <md GNte· 
ral Mills Ltd .. , .. Kau.<hal llhan, [1%01 3 S.C.R. 227: Tata Oil Mills Co .. 
[,rd 
v. The Workmen. A.1.R. 1965 S.C. 155: Tlir King v. 
Pnrmanand. 
A.1.R. 1949 Pal. 282: D. !. Shield v. Rameram. Al.R. 
1955 
Andhro 
Prad~sh, 156 referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
JI 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
-
• 
G 
• 
H 
JANG BAHADUR v. BAIJ NATH (Bachawat, J.) 
135 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
187 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgmen~ and. o~der da~ed 
August 3, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court tn Cr!Ullnal Misc. 
Contempt Case No. 7 of 1965. 
U. P. Singh and D. N. Mishra, for the appellant. 
Sobhagmal Jain, S. P. Singh and J. P: Goyal, for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• 
Bacbawat, J.-The appellant is the manager of Hiralal Memo-
rial Intermediate College, Bhaurauli, in the District of Azam-
garh. 
The respondent was the principal of the College. 
On 
December 14, 1963 the respondent drew from the Boys' Fund 
of the college two sums of Rs. 189 for payment of scholarship to· 
the two Harijan students for the period from May to November 
1963. On withdrawal of the monies he sent to the Harijan Tatha 
Saniaj Kalyan Adhikari a form called Form No. 14 to the Adhi-
kari containing a receipt of the scholarship signed by the 
twe> 
students and counter-signed by himself. 
The Adhikari wrote to 
the appellant informing him of the complaint made by the stu-
dents that in spite of the submission of Form No. 14 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.