Orissa High Court
Kuna Ramanjaneyulu vs C.R. Marandi And Others .... Opp. ... on 22 April, 2021
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No.1886 of 2019
Kuna Ramanjaneyulu .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
C.R. Marandi and Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. A. K. Das, counsel
for Opposite Parties.
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 22.04.2021
06. 1. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. The contemptuous action alleged in the present petition is the violation of an order dated 7th March 2018 passed in W.P(C) No.985 of 2018 (Misc. Case No.690 of 2018) by the present Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 who are the Railway authorities.
3. The Petitioner is a sub-inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). He had filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the continuation of a departmental proceeding against him as void ab inito, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law along with certain other prayers. This Court on 7th March 2018 passed the following order in the said petition:
"Sri D. K. Sahu, learned counsel has accepted notice for all the Opposite Parties. Let extra copies of the writ petition be served on him within 24 hours. He prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
// 2 // List it thereafter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that meanwhile further enquiry proceedings initiated against the Petitioner in pursuance of Annexure- 1 Dated 10th March, 2015 shall remain stayed."
4. Upon notice, the Opposite Parties filed their counter affidavit along with I.A. No. 9794 of 2018 seeking vacation of the stay order dated 7th March 2018.
5. Pending adjudication of the writ petition as well as the I.A., on 14th June 2019 the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railways (Opposite Party No.3) issued a letter to the Petitioner asking him to submit his written defense statement to the Enquiry Officer within 10 days. The relevant portion of the said letter reads thus:
"xxxxxxx xxxxxxx And Railway Board vide letter No.2006/Sec (E)/DAR- 3/36 (Policy) dated 27th March, 2019 circulated the Office Memorandum No. N 17/10/2018-NM dated 13th June, 2018 of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India enclosing the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's judgment order dated 28th March, 2018 passed in Crl. Appeal No.1375-1376 of 2013, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The implication of the aforesaid judgment is that "where any action by a development agency or enforcement agency as the case may be stayed by a court of law, the same shall stand vacated automatically at the expiry of 06 months from the date of the order, i.e. 28th March, 2018, unless the same is extended by a speaking order".
In light of the above judgment order of Hon'ble Apex Court and above office memorandum circulated by Page 2 of 8 // 3 // Railway Board, the interim order dated 7th March, 2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court at Cuttack in W.P. No.785/2018 is automatically vacated until unless it is extended by an order.
In view of the above, it is advised to submit your written Defence statement if any to the enquiry officer within 10 days of receipt of this Notice. The Enquiry Officer's letter No.76 dated 23rd February, 2018 in 02 sheets is enclosed herewith. Non submission of any reply within 10 days to the Enquiry Officer, it shall be presumed that there is nothing to represent and the further necessary action will be initiated by the Enquiry Officer. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx".
6. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a legal notice through his lawyer to Opposite Party No.3 on 22nd June 2019 to which Opposite Party No.3 sent his reply. On 26th September 2019, Opposite Party No.2, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner by virtue of a speaking order dated 25th September 2019 passed by Opposite Party No.1 (the Chief Security Commissioner) in the departmental proceeding, imposed the penalty of removal from service against the Petitioner with immediate effect (Annexures- 3 and 4). This is the cause of action for filing the present petition.
7. In response to the notice in the contempt petition, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 have filed their show cause affidavits separately taking their common defence to the order of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner Page 3 of 8 // 4 // was resumed after the Petitioner was served with the notice dated 22nd June, 2019 and the order of removal has been passed.
8. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the action of the contemnor - Opposite Parties in issuing the order of removal from service of the Petitioner is in itself contemptuous as the interim order dated 7th March, 2018 staying further enquiry in the proceeding was still operating on the date the said order was issued by the Opposite Parties. She thus prayed that the Court should punish the contemnor.
9. It is settled law that in contempt proceedings the power to punish should be exercised 1with great care and circumspection, and only where it is necessary to punish the contemnor to uphold the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts. In the case of Patel Rajnikant Bhola Bhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dulabhai and other, (2008) 14 SCC 561 it has been observed that:
"punishing a person for contempt of court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the order passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt."Page 4 of 8
// 5 //
10. In Asian Resurfacing (supra) the Supreme Court observed:
"36. In view of the above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned since die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.
37. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time- limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-Page 5 of 8
// 6 // three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court, i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other Courts relating to the PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by speaking order on the above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate / Revisional Courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of the above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced."
11. In the same case by order dated 15th October, 2020 (2020 SCC online SC 1046) the Supreme Court has further observed that, whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same.
12. In the instant case the order dated 7th March, 2018 is apparently an interim measure granted for a limited period, which is evident from the word 'meanwhile'. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing case (supra) is not applicable to the present case since the Petitioner is not party to any civil or criminal case Page 6 of 8 // 7 // and the Opposite Parties are under a misconception that there is an automatic vacation of the stay order after six months.
13. Looking to the allegation made against the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, it reveals that, he is an accused in RP(UP) Act case no.17 of 2013 registered by the RPF, Rayagada on 17th August, 2013 for theft of aluminium powder. The order of the Supreme Court in the Asian Resurfacing case (supra) covers all the civil and criminal cases. Law is no more res integra that disciplinary matters are quasi judicial proceedings. In the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 539 the Apex Court has held that holding disciplinary 0proceeding against a government employee and imposing punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rule is in the nature of quasi judicial proceeding. Also in the case of Roop Sing Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 the Supreme Court has observed that indisputably a disciplinary proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function.
14. Thus on a broader concept, the directions of the Supreme Court in the Asian Resurfacing case, which applies to all civil and criminal cases, in our humble view, also covers departmental proceedings being a quasi judicial proceeding. Therefore, the said direction of the Supreme Court applies to the disciplinary proceeding continued against the present Petitioner.
Page 7 of 8// 8 //
15. In view of the discussions made above and in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing (supra), the contempt proceeding is dropped.
16. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798, dated 15th April, 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda0 Page 8 of 8