The Excise Department gave an advertisement in the newspaper for certain vacancies of subordinate staff under the signature of Bhuwan. In the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that such staff will be paid the daily

The present case is similar to the case of S. Venkata Raman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 37. In this case the hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia observed that Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India laid down that the holding of a departmental enquiry by the departmental authorities would not be a prosecution for the second time. The Court was of the view that the scope of the criminal prosecution and the departmental enquiry would be separate and independent of each other. For that reason, it was laid down that even if a person were to be acquitted by a court of law, the departmental authorities could still hold a departmental enquiry against the employee. Applying the principles laid down by their Lordships to this present case, the Court was of the opinion that the mere holding of a departmental enquiry during the pendency of a criminal prosecution in respect of the same subject matter would not amount to contempt of the court. The position would be different if an attempt is made by the departmental authorities to influence the court in any manner or otherwise to create an atmosphere of prejudice. But the mere holding of a departmental enquiry and even passing an order therein of punishment would not amount to contempt. The departmental authorities are free to exercise such lawful powers, as are conferred on them by the departmental rules and regulations. Such exercise of powers bona fide cannot come within the mischief of the law of contempt. The view of the learned Magistrate in the case, therefore, in not legally valid.