Contempt of Court: Punjab and Haryana HC awards six month jail to govt polytechnic college principal

Source: indianexpress.com

Holding him responsible for wilful disobedience of an interim order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has convicted the principal of a government-aided polytechnic college under the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced him to six months in jail.

However, the HC ordered a stay on its judgment for 30 days to allow Dr Jagroop Singh, the principal of the Jalandhar-based Mehr Chand Polytechnic College to file any appeal.

“There is a complete, wilful and deliberate defiance of this court’s orders. Opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent and the court was inclined to take a lenient view. However, the ordeal of the petitioners continued and in the span of one year, the respondent has deliberately defied the orders. The conduct clearly establishes that he has no respect for the law of the land and the orders passed by this Court,” said Justice Jitendra Chauhan in an order.

In the case filed last year, some contractual employees of the college had challenged the decision to replace them with another set of employees on contract. On July 9, 2018, the high court ordered a stay on such replacement and later passed a direction asking the college management to not make any further appointment except through regular mode. However, the college management went ahead with the engagement of guest faculty lecturers or instructors on hourly basis even if posts equal to the number of petitioners were kept vacant.

The high court, in its ruling, said that leniency shown in such matters will not only frustrate the legitimate right of the poor petitioners but also will “embolden unscrupulous elements in the system to trample the rights of the workers with impunity.”

“Such a situation cannot be allowed to persist and needs to be addressed. To hoodwink the orders of the court, the respondent has devised a novel method of appointing same persons on an hourly basis. The intention and defiance of the respondent is fully proved,” the order reads, adding the imposition of fine does not serve the intended purpose.