Allahabad High Court
Romesh Kumar Sharma vs Sh.Prakash Javadekar,Hon'Ble Human ... on 17 July, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 681 of 2019 Applicant :- Romesh Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- Sh.Prakash Javadekar,Hon'Ble Human Resource Dev.Minister & Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pushpila Bisht Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
The present contempt petition has been filed for alleged violation/ non compliance of the order dated 07.11.2016 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1766(SB) of 2014 whereby this Court granted two months' time for completing the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner as directed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow vide its order dated 17.09.2014 passed in Original Application No.162/2008 filed by the petitioner.
It appears that the enquiry as directed by this Court to be completed within a period of two months could not get completed and the respondents moved an application for extension of time. However, the aforesaid application was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2017 on the ground that no sufficient reason had been disclosed in the application.
The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging that despite specific direction given by this court and his application having been rejected for extension of time, the respondents did not complete the enquiry and they had completed it on 11.12.2018 much after the time period which was granted by this court.
After conclusion of the enquiry, punishment of 20% reduction in the pension for 5 years has been passed. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order and it is subjudice before the C.A.T., Lucknow.
Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the enquiry could not get completed within a period of two months as the petitioner was not cooperating in the enquiry and he was not turning up despite notice having been issued and, therefore, the enquiry could not get completed within a period of two months.
It is true that the enquiry as directed by this Court to be completed within a period of two months could not get completed and even application filed by the applicant for extension of time had been rejected. Contempt jurisdiction is very extraordinary jurisdiction. Constitutional Courts are vested with the powers to punish a person who willfully disobeyes the order of this court. Though the respondents have not completed the enquriy within a period of two months as granted by this Court, but it would be difficult to say that they had wilfully disobeyed the order. The respondents might have been lax in concluding the enquiry but there is difference between wilful disobedience and being lax in complying with the order.
Once the enquiry has been completed and punishment has been inflicted, I do not think that any further order needs to be passed in the contempt petition. However, the alleged contemnor is warned that in future he should act very promptly in complying with the order passed by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, Contempt petition is disposed of.
Contempt notice stands discharged.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 prateek