Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
The Commissioner Of Police vs Head Const. Ishwar Dayal on 18 August, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi R.A.No.126/2009 M.A.No.1467/2009 O.A.No.595/2009 Tuesday, this the 18th day of August 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) 1. The Commissioner of Police PHQ, MSO Building IP Estate, New Delhi-2 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police 4th BN. DAP, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi 3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police West District, Rajouri Garden New Delhi 4. The Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi ..Review Applicants/ Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) Versus Head Const. Ishwar Dayal (Belt No.3963, DAP 4th BN r/o CPA-141 New Seelam Pur, Delhi ..Original Applicant / Respondent (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. MA-1239/2009 has been filed by the original applicant seeking revival of CP-150/2009. Applicant against his continued suspension approached the Tribunal in OA-595/2009. At an admission stage even without issuing notice to the respondents, the said OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the OA as a supplementary representation where a reference has been made to OA-2511/2008, which, according to the applicant, stood implemented in case of applicant therein. It transpires that when the directions were not complied with, it led to filing of CP-150/2009. MA-678/2009 was also filed by the respondents seeking extension of time to comply with our orders. Both these proceedings have been finalized by an order passed on 18.5.2009 whereby we directed the respondents to comply with our directions in true letter and spirit by 30.6.2009.
3. Respondents in the OA have filed the present RA (RA-126/2009) on the ground that OA-2511/2008, which has been referred to in the original order of the Tribunal, was carried by them before the High Court of Delhi by filing WP-8770/2009 wherein an order passed on 6.5.2009 set aside the order of the Tribunal but with directions to the respondents to process the case, in case the Closure Report is accepted and the respondent therein is discharged to revoke his suspension for the purposes of full salary, etc.
4. Shri Pandita, learned counsel for respondents would contend that the applicant despite knowing the outcome of the case, referred in the original order, has not apprised to the Court and as the very basis of the directions issued by the Tribunal, i.e., OA-2511/2008 has been obliterated by setting aside the order by the High Court of Delhi, there is nothing left to be complied with.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
6. An order passed by the Tribunal on 6.3.2009 has not foreseen the outcome of the OA-2511/2008, which has been assailed before the High Court by the respondents. Decision of High Court reversing the order had come on 6.5.2009, by the time the directions of this Tribunal had become final and the Bench had become functus officio.
7. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for respondents that once the directions in OA-2511/2008 have been obliterated and the representation of the applicant mainly concerns with the grounds, which have not been found apt in law by the High Court, no purpose would be served if the representation is now disposed of by the respondents and the same would be an empty formality.
8. The administrative authorities when directed by judicial fora are to act in the manner, which is suggested / directed to them. A decision of the High Court was not in existence on 6.3.2009 when we passed the directions. In our order, apart from direction of consideration of applicant being similarly circumstanced with the applicant in OA-2511/2008 by treating the OA as a supplementary representation, we also found violation of Rule 10 (6) and (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules whereby prolong suspension has been assailed.
9. A review is not maintainable on the ground that a subsequent decision has altered the material position, which has been well laid down by a Three Judge Bench of Apex Court in The State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta & another, 2008 (9) SCALE 504 wherein guidelines have been issued for the Tribunal under Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 how to deal with review applications.
10. In the above view of the matter, irrespective of the fact that directions in OA-2511/2008 have been set aside or modified, the claim of the applicant against his continued suspension on other legal grounds, apart from violation of CCS (CCA) Rules, was available and in existence, which could have been considered by the respondents while disposing of the representation, as directed by us. The attitude of the respondents by not disposing of the representation shows that they are not respectful to the Courts orders and would have to be treated as a willful disobedience of our directions. Nothing prevented them from approaching the High Court of Delhi for setting aside our directions. In such an event, we could have no complaint against the respondents.
11. In contempt jurisdiction, we do not want any punitive action to be taken against the respondents but at least decisions are to be respected to prevent miscarriage of justice and to uphold the majesty of law. Otherwise, the directions issued by the judicial bodies, if so neglected on grounds which are not apt in law, a common feeling would come in the public that the judiciary is no more a respected branch of our Constitution and by this there would be a chaotic situation in the society, which could have been avoided by the respondents by truthfully and reasonably complying with our directions.
12. In the above view of the matter, RA filed by the respondents is turned down. MA filed by the applicant seeking revival of CP is allowed. CP-150/209 is accordingly revived. We now direct the respondents to pass a speaking order dealing with the contentions of the applicant in OA by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. CP-150/2009 stands disposed of. Notices are discharged. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/