STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: The attachment of a draftsman in the office of PDD allegedly on the behest Deputy Chief Minister, Chief Engineer PDD to face contempt of Court.
Justice Janak Raj Kotwal of J and K High Court Jammu Wing while setting-aside the transfer, directed Registrar Judicial Jammu to draw contempt proceedings (Robkar) against aforementioned Chief Engineer and issue notice to him to show cause as to why he be not proceeded against for an act of the contempt of Court committed by him.
While directing Registrar Judicial for making Robkar against Chief Engineer PDD Jammu, Justice Kotwal observed that in this case it is noticed with displeasure that the official respondents in their reply have concealed the real picture and have projected a story based on untrue facts. “The reply has been filed and authenticated through sworn affidavit by the Chief Engineer Electric M&RE Wing, Jammu, Ashwani Gupta, who is the author of the impugned order. By concealing the true picture and pleading untrue facts, the aforesaid Chief Engineer, besides attempting to mislead this Court, has undermined the majesty of law as also the attribute of the high position held by him. The act of the Chief Engineer makes out a prima facie case of contempt of Court and invites and necessitates action against him”, Justice Kotwal observed.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Jamit Ram Parihar, Head Draftsman in the Power Development Department, seeking to quash order No CEJ/Adm./366 of 2015 dated 30th December 2015 issued by the Chief Engineer, Electric M & R E, Jammu whereby the petitioner is attached to the Direction Office, Jammu from STD-I, Jammu and the private respondent, Balbir Singh Jamwal, who was awaiting adjustment, is posted against him in STD-I.
Court further observed that the facts that attachment of the petitioner has been ordered only with the purpose of adjusting the private respondent against the post held by him on the behest of the Deputy Chief Minister and attempt on the part of official respondents, in particular the officer who issued the order, to conceal the real picture and justify the attachment on a baseless ground, which is not true, supports petitioner’s allegation that attachment of the petitioner is actuated by malafide and ulterior motives. A Government servant has a right to question his transfer when it is outcome of malafide or ulterior motive and a case for showing indulgence by the court is made out, notwithstanding that transfer is an incident of service and no Government servant has a right to remain posted at a particular place for a particular time.
