Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Suresh Chandra Verma vs Union Of India & Ors : Through on 14 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI C.P. NO. 16/2012 IN O.A. NO.2235/2007 New Delhi, this the 14th day of May, 2012 Coram: Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Suresh Chandra Verma, Mobile Booking Clerk, 164-M Block, Prem Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi Petitioner (By Advocate: Shri B.S. Mainee with Ms Meenu Mainee) Versus Union of India & Ors : Through 1. Shri K.B.L. Mittal, General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2. Shri V.K. Yadav, Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajinder Khattar) O R D E R
By Dr. Veena Chhotray:
The CP 16/2012 has been filed by the original applicant alleging contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents in respect of the directions issued by the Tribunal vide the order dated 23.03.2009 in the OA 2235/2007. The contempt has been alleged on the ground of the respondents decision to treat the period between Removal from Service and Reinstatement as dies-non on the basis of no work no pay, vide their Office Order dated 28.12.2010.
The present order is being passed after hearing the counsels on both the sides and considering the averments in the CP as well as the status report filed by the respondents.
2. Through the OA 2235/2007, the applicant was challenging penalty of removal on the charges of securing reengagement as Mobile Booking Clerk on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates. The said penalty had been imposed after a disciplinary proceeding. The impugned orders had been set aside and the following operational directions issued:-
27. Resultantly, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed to the extent that impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant forthwith. However, they are at liberty, if so advised, to resume the proceedings from the stage of serving the documents sought for by the applicant and examination of witnesses. Thereafter on finalization of the disciplinary proceedings to decide the intervening period from the date of removal till reinstatement in accordance with rules and instructions and law on the subject. No costs. The Writ Petitions filed by the respondents before the High Court in this as well as similar OAs had been dismissed by a common judgment dated 6.8.2010.
3. After the decision of the Delhi High Court, The General Manager, North Eastern Railways vide his order dated 10.11.2010 communicated approval of the competent authority for implementation of the Tribunals orders (Annex. CP/3). The Office Order dated 28.12.2010 was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager canceling the earlier orders of removal and reinstating the applicant, along with other similarly placed employees. However, in the same order the decision regarding treating the intervening period between removal and reinstatement as dies-non, on the basis of no work, no pay was mentioned.
4. The ground raised in the Contempt Petition is that the order of dies-non is illegal and in violation of the settled principles of law. Further, a reference has also been made to Rule 1344 of IREM Vol.II with the contention of the applicant being entitled for treatment of the intervening period as spent on duty and to be allowed regularization, seniority, promotion, wages and back wages and all. As per the contention in the CP, according to the directions given by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Honble High Court, after reinstatement all consequential benefits ought to have been allowed.
Shri B.S. Mainee, the learned counsel for the applicant, would argue the impugned decision of the respondents being not only against rules and established law but also contumacious in nature, by way of contravening the directions by the Tribunal. To support his arguments, Shri Mainee would draw attention to certain observations by the High Court in Para 22 of the order. The learned counsel would also cite the Apex Courts decision in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs C. Muttaiah {AISLJ 2008 (1) 387}. Arguing that non-implementation of the directions by a competent court would mean an end of Rule of Law, the following extracts from Para 31 of the judgment would be particularly referred:
We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law..
5. In their status report, the respondents have opposed the Contempt Petition. The gravity of the charges against the applicant and the quashing of the penalty of removal from service on technical grounds have been highlighted. It is further stated that in accordance with the Tribunals directions, the applicant has been reinstated in service. As regards the issue of treating the intervening period as dies-non, their submission is that this has been done as per law, but if the applicant has any grievance against this order, the only remedy is to file an OA in the original side.
In support of their contentions, Shri Rajender Khattar, the learned counsel for the respondents would cite the Apex Courts decision in J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors {(1999) 6 SCC 291} where it was held once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum.
6. Having carefully considered the facts of the case and the respective averments, we note that the only definite operational direction given by the Tribunal was regarding cancellation of the order of removal and a direction for reinstatement of the applicant. Admittedly, this has been done by the respondents vide their order dated 28.12.2010 and there is no grievance on the part of the applicant on that score. Further, it is not correct on the part of the applicant to contend that any directions had been issued as regards the consequential benefits. The only other direction was with regard to the treatment of the intervening period, which was made subject to finalization of the disciplinary proceedings (for which liberty had been granted to the respondents to resume the proceedings from the stage directed in the orders). In that event, the treatment of the intervening period was to be decided as per rules and law. The judgment of the Honble High Court referred by the applicants learned counsel, is only indicative of certain observations made in respect of the requirement of giving the documents to the charged official before resuming the enquiry.
6.1 As is revealed in course of the hearing, no further enquiry was resumed in the present case. Instead, the respondents while issuing the order of reinstatement have also passed the order of treating the intervening period as dies-non. According to them, it is justified on the basis of the established principle of law of no work, no pay. However, the applicants case is about the present decision being in contravention of the rules.
6.2 Dealing with the case in the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction, we do not find it appropriate to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision regarding the treatment of the intervening period as dies-non. As there was no definite direction in this respect in the Tribunals order, we do not find the plea of the applicant about the said decision constituting a contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. The reliance placed on Karnataka Housing Boards case (supra) is not relevant for the reason that the facts of the case were different, in as much as in the original order in that case there were definite directions regarding payment of all consequential benefits.
6.3 It was observed by the Honble Apex Court in Security Finance (P) Ltd & Anr vs Dattatraya Raghav Agge & Ors {AIR 1970 SC 720} every act cannot be a defiance or willful negligence of the Courts order. Any act which is intentional, deliberate and has a character of disrespect with malaifes is a contumacious disobedience.
We would also like to reiterate the view taking by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal (Guwahati Bench) in its order dated 9.5.2011, while dealing with a Contempt Petition No.4/2011 in OA No.36/2008 (Tapan Sutradhar vs Raghu Menon & Ors {AISLJ 2011 (3) CAT 168}:
.This is a well settled law. Contempt proceedings, if they are to be effective, must not be used too readily and too frequently, without compelling reasons at the instance of an aggrieved litigants who, more often than not, are inspired by a desire to utilize the machinery of these powers for enforcing their civil rights. We also find merit in the respondents contention that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in J.S. Parihars case, once an order is passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum.
For the foregoing reasons, the Contempt Petition is found to be without merit. The applicant, in case of grievance, has to seek its redressal by appropriate remedy under the original jurisdiction. The CP is closed and notices discharged.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (M.L. Chauhan)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pkr/m