Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri V.K. Sinha, Secretary General (On ... vs Shri Brahm Dutt, Secretary, Department ... on 21 August, 2008
ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. On consent of parties, the CP had been taken up, although a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent only on this day.
2. O.A. 73 of 2008 has been disposed of, on 12.03.2008, whereby the respondents had been directed to post the applicant back as Additional Director General, in the Ministry of Transport within a time specified. Initially there was an extension of time applied for, and it was granted. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed to challenge the order. On 23.05.2008, the High Court had upheld the order. Contempt application is filed on 30.6.2008, justifiably alleging that there was ex facie contempt, as no steps were being taken by the respondents to comply with the orders.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, invited our attention to the additional affidavit filed and the order passed on 25.07.2008, which indicates that consequent to an order passed on 22.07.2008, posting the applicant as Additional Director General, he had been allotted works of a specified nature, in the following terms:
i) Evolving a comprehensive plan for bringing the NHS network (presently 20,644 Kms in single lane/intermediate lane) to a minimum of two-lane Standard within the next ten years and four laning of non-NHDP stretches.
ii) Replacement of existing level crossings on non NHDP sections of National Highways network with ROBs/RUBs in a phased manner on cost sharing basis with the Ministry of Railways through State PWDs/BRO.
It is the submission of the counsel Mr. Soumyajit Pani that an attempt is made as if to show that orders have been complied with, but respondent has, however, seen to it that the status of the post is eroded. According to him, therefore, the contempt continues, as there is discernable an attitude of defiance. The duties assigned are vague, and there were no steps for giving technical support. Compared to the position with the earlier situations, as disclosed by Annexure A-2 dated 26.11.2007 it would be evident. There were two Additional Director General at that time and the work had been divided as amongst them but now when only one officer is there (himself) the duties commensurate with the status ought to have been entrusted to him. He is a technical man, and there is likelihood of his under utilization. In the day to day functioning also, applicant asserts, he has been subjected to discrimination.
4. Counsel points out that at the time of disposal of the earlier proceedings, the Tribunal had observed that on repatriation after deputation, the employee is expected to be assigned the same work. Counsel also invited our attention to an order passed in CP 315 of 2007 where the same applicant had preferred a petition requesting the Tribunal to proceed against the erring officers, and even at that time, hope was expressed that the orders passed by the Tribunal were to be obeyed in letter and spirit. It had been cautioned that respondents should not be party to any mischievous arrangements whereby the purport of the directions are defeated. The submission in short is that by giving a posting now, the order is obeyed in letter but not in spirit and it is actionable.
5. A copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent had been made available. It has been filed by the Under Secretary. He has taken a stand that the orders of the Tribunal have been obeyed and there is no attempt to overreach the orders of the Tribunal. Relying on Fundamental Rule 11, it has been averred that it is within the right of the Department to employ an officer in any manner. Paragraph 3 is not intelligible. Mr. Pani submits that Paragraph 5 only provides interesting reading.
6. We had examined the stands adopted. The attitude adopted by the respondent is difficult to be appreciated, especially the stand in the present case that there is absolute right reserved with the executive to employ an officer in any manner as they choose. Fundamental Rule 11 provides that the whole time of the Government servant is at the disposal of the Government and he could be employed in any manner required by appropriate authority, without raising claim for additional remuneration. The respondent evidently has failed by design or otherwise to understand and appreciate the scope of the Rule and the context in which it is incorporated in the statute book. The reply should have been in a more temperate language and we record our displeasure over the attitude of Mr. Brahm Dutt, Secretary to Government, about in the manner in which the counter affidavit appears and is worded.
7. We expect that the executive authorities conduct themselves fairly. They are not to act in a despotic manner as they choose. The applicant is entitled to protection of law. The respondent is only the Principal Officer and he has no extra power over him or his office whereby the officer is shuttled and his rights for a fair treatment and career progression are minimized. The caution that had been incorporated in the order-dated 05.03.2008 in CP 315/2007 was taking note of the situation presented and it may be possible to assume that nothing much has changed. It is even alleged that an invitation received by the applicant from a Public Sector Enterprise to render a lecture as a guest faculty initially approved had been interdicted by the Respondent at the last moment, without assigning any reasons. If the attempt is to project that ultimately the power is with the respondent himself, and the court's orders would remain in paper alone, he is mistaken. High-ranking officers should respect one another, and should be up above petty office politics. Otherwise it would have to be assumed that they have learnt nothing although there was considerable opportunity gained for human management. However, we restrain ourselves, hoping that good sense will prevail over the respondent while discharging public duties and the rights of a civil servant will not be trampled upon.
8. In matters of assignment of duties essentially the discretion of the superior officers is expected to be employed fairly, uniformly and consistent with prevailing practices. Though the applicant submits that it is not borne in mind, we do not think, there is justification for initiating coercive action under the Contempt of Courts Act, especially since it has turned out to be a borderline case. The application is closed. Notice to respondent is discharged. However, this does not mean that the applicant is debarred from agitating over issues of secondary treatment in further proceedings as might be thought of. We make no order as to costs.