Officers cannot be made to appear in court as a routine practice as their time is meant for citizens, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it came across a case of a Patna high court judge who had issued 142 orders summoning senior Bihar government officials in various cases since October 2021.
Staying a July 13 order passed by the same judge who was part of a bench which issued bailable warrants against Bihar education department additional chief secretary KK Pathak in a contempt case relating to a teacher’s promotion, a bench of justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala said, “In a matter where there is blatant disregard of orders passed by the court, it may be justified in securing personal presence of officers. However, such a practice should not become a routine practice.”
The Bihar government, represented by senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, informed the court that this was not a one-off case as one of the judges on the bench, justice PB Bajanthri, had in the past issued similar directions summoning officials of the state. The state compiled a list of 142 similar orders passed by the judge in routine matters over the past 20 months.
Noting this in its order, the bench said, “No doubt authorities of state are bound to comply with court’s directions, such directions cannot be at the drop of a hat… Officers are supposed to discharge their duty to citizens. Their presence in court will deprive citizens of their precious time.”
Nadkarni pointed out that bailable warrants were issued on July 6 despite the state having fully complied with the order issued by the high court.
The matter before the HC pertained to an assistant teacher Ghanshyam Prasad Singh at a Nalanda school who had approached the HC in 2014 challenging refusal of the state government to grant him promotion in graduate trained scale on the basis of Sahitya Alankar degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar.
The HC ruled in his favour on 23 February 2016 and ordered the state to grant him the requisite pay scale from the date his immediate junior in service obtained the same pay scale. The state challenged this order before the Supreme Court but failed to get relief. In 2018, the teacher filed a contempt petition which was taken up in May this year.
The high court asked the state authorities to explain the seven-year delay in implementing its 2016 direction and sought a response from the principal secretary in the state education department. In June, Pathak joined as additional chief secretary and acted with alacrity to grant promotion as per the HC order. On June 20, he filed an affidavit placing this fact before the HC and seeking closure of the contempt case. The contempt petitioner was also satisfied with the state action.
On July 6, the HC bench of justices PB Bajanthri and Jitendra Kumar noted compliance by the state but sought Pathak’s personal appearance on July 13. As Pathak failed to turn up on the assigned day, the bench issued bailable warrants against the officer.
“It is to be noted that when personal presence is ordered, it was bounden duty of concerned officer to appear in person. If he has got any difficulty in appearing, in that event an application is required to be filed for exemption from his personal appearance. Such an application is not forthcoming as of today. Therefore, his personal presence is warranted,” the order said.
As the officer was stated to be in Jehanabad and not Patna on July 13, the court wanted the officer to state so in his affidavit when he appears before the court on July 20.
The state in its appeal drafted by advocate Rishi Awasthi told the top court that within a month of the officer joining the education department, the HC order stood complied. Yet, such a senior officer was made to face contempt proceedings that would harm his reputation.
Nadkarni who appeared for the state further informed the court that the HC had a day later converted the bailable warrants into non-bailable warrant to secure the officer’s presence. As this order was yet to be challenged, the top court bench said, “With today’s order, there might be some relief.”
The apex court further directed a copy of its order to be sent to the high court Registrar General who shall bring it to the notice of the chief justice there.
