Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Jagdishbhai Bhati vs Bimalkumar Jha on 11 July, 2018
Author: R.Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/MCA/866/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 866 of 2018
==========================================================
SANJAY JAGDISHBHAI BHATI
Versus
BIMALKUMAR JHA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 11/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER :HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1. This application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Civil Application (For Direction) No.8093 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No.10925 of 2015.
2. In Special Civil Application, the applicant herein has questioned the order of removal from service as major punishment on proved misconduct. The order of removal was stayed initially by an order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Civil Application No.8093 of 2017. Thereafter, further order is passed in the said Civil Application on 12.09.2017. It appears from the said order that when it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant before the learned Page 1 of 3 C/MCA/866/2018 ORDER Single Judge that in spite the order of dismissal was stayed, the applicant was not paid subsistence allowance, etc., the learned Single Judge issued the directions to the respondents to make the payment as per law.
3. Payment of subsistence allowance is not in dispute. It is the case of the applicant - petitioner that when the removal order is stayed, he is entitled for the payment of full salary or in lieu thereof, reinstatement in service. It is submitted by learned counsel that even after passing the order dated 12.09.2017, in spite of making representation by the petitioner, respondents have not considered for payment of entire amount of salary which is payable.
4. This application is filed for violation of directions issued in the order dated 13.07.2017. However, the subsequent order dated 12.09.2017 is passed, which reads as under:
"In this case, the impugned order dated 6.7.2017 vide which the petitioner was removed from service has been stayed on 13th July, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the aforementioned order having been stayed, the petitioner is not being paid subsistence allowances, etc. Respondent to make payment as per law. Matter to come up on 19th September, 2017."
5. When it was submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that he was Page 2 of 3 C/MCA/866/2018 ORDER not being paid subsistence allowance, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to make payment as per law.
6. When the amount of subsistence allowance is being paid, which is not in dispute, it cannot be said that there is a willful and deliberate violation of the direction issued by this Court attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the order dated 13.07.2017 and further order dated 12.09.2017, if the applicant is entitled for the entire salary or reinstatement in lieu thereof, while it is open for the applicant to seek appropriate direction in pending Special Civil Application, but at the same time, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. Accordingly, while granting liberty to the applicant to seek appropriate direction in pending Special Civil Application, the Misc. Civil Application is dismissed.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 3 of 3