Allahabad High Court
Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan ... vs Sunder Lal Maurya And Anr. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46885 Court No. - 27 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey,Anurag Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,In Person,Raj Kumar Singh,S.B.Pandey,S.K. Yadav Warsi,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(C.M. Application Nos. 40 of 2025)
1. Heard the applicant-respondent no.1-Sunder Lal Maurya, who appears in person.
2. The present application has been filed for recall of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in C.M. Application No.34043 of 2018 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India moved in instant Special Appeal no.10 of 2017, which has already been decided vide order dated 13.09.2017. The order dated 02.09.2024 passed in C.M. Application No.34043 of 2018 is reproduced as under :
"Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey,Anurag Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,In Person,Raj Kumar Singh,S.B.Pandey,S.K. Yadav Warsi,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(C.M. Application No. 34043 of 2018)
1. This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed for summoning and punishing Mr. B.K. Verma, Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi.
2. Heard the applicant-respondent no. 1 in person.
3. The applicant submits that in the present Special Appeal 10 of 2017, a composite order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on C.M. Application Nos. 27/2022, 36/2023 and 37/2023, on 13.10.2023, by which, on the basis of the fact mentioned in the supplementary affidavit of the counsel appearing for the Academy, it was observed that the case of the applicant-Sunder Lal Maurya is already registered in the Central Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No. 02 of 2018. The applicant-respondent no. 1 also informs that record of the said T.A. No. 02 of 2018 was transmitted to Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in compliance of the order dated 13.09.2017 and thereafter, the relevant record was again called back in pursuance of the order 09.11.2022.
4. However, on 13.10.2023, it was expected that Central Administrative Tribunal shall decide the aforesaid T.A. No. 02 of 2018, but it is informed by the applicant that relevant record, which was called back, has not been sent back to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Order dated 13.10.2023 is as under:
"[Order on C.M. Application (IA) Nos. 27 of 2022, 36 of 2023 and 37 of 2023] Heard Sri Sunder Lal Maurya, the applicant/respondent who appears in person, Sri Anurag Srivastava and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent/appellants.
This is a chronic case which has been brought before us by way of instituting an application dated 04.02.2022, for recall of the final order dated 13.09.2017 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017.
Brief history of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed on 31.05.1991 in Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Academy (hereinafter referred as "IGRUA") and was working as a tractor driver. On, 11.07.2001, he was issued chargesheet for disobedience of the orders of the authority of the Academy and the departmental enquiry proceeded and vide order dated 23.07.2002, removal order was passed and thereafter, the appellate authority had also upheld the punishment on 23.01.2003. Being aggrieved the applicant filed a writ petition, bearing number, Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003, against the order of removal dated 23.07.2002, wherein, vide judgement and order dated 23.12.2016, the writ petition was allowed. The operative portion of the order dated 23.12.2016 is quoted hereinunder:-
In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
Challenging aforesaid order, IGRUA filed an Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017, wherein, the order was passed on 13.09.2017, whereby, the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 was set-aside and the matter was transmitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The extract of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Accordingly, we allow the appeal. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 is hereby set aside. Both the writ petitions along with records be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, within two months from today whereupon the Tribunal will proceed to decide the same, in accordance to law.
All ancillary proceedings whatever may be pending consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions will also be transfered to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the writ petitions are of the year 2000 and 2003, we expect that the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records."
Again the applicant instituted a review application for revisit of the order dated 13.09.2017, which was dismissed on 24.04.2019. Thereafter, a modification application was also moved by the applicant for modification of the order dated 24.04.2019, passed in the review application and that too has been rejected on 24.07.2019.
Now the instant application has been moved for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, which is after lapse of five years.
At the very outset, counsel appearing for the IGRUA has raised preliminary objection, that since the order dated 13.09.2017, is the final judgement and order, in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 and therefore, miscellaneous application that is the application for recall, is not maintainable. He reitirated that the applicant moved review application of the order dated 13.09.2017, which was dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 24.04.2019 and modification application for modification of the order dated 24.04.2019 passed in review application was also rejected on 24.07.2019. Therefore, submission is that the application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017 may be rejected.
On the other hand, the applicant, namely, Sunder Lal Maurya, who appears in person submitted that the order dated 13.09.2017 has been passed ignoring the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court. He added that it is trite law that once a writ petition is admitted and is pending for long considerable period of time then the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and in the present matter, the writ petition was not only admitted, but the final judgement and order was passed and therefore, this Court should not have remitted back the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
He further argued that the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 and after 13 years, it was decided in year 2016, therefore if the matter of the applicant is again relegated back to the Central Administrative Tribunal but, no fruitful purpose would be sub-served and the applicant would be harassed for no fault on his part. Thus, submission is that the recall application may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003 (Sunder Lal Maurya versus Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Akademi Fursatganj), was allowed on 23.12.2016 in favour of the applicant while quashing the impugned removal order and thereafter, the Special Appeal bearing number 10 of 2017 was filed by the IGRUA and the same was allowed and the matter has been remitted back before the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereafter, a review application was filed by the applicant, which was dismissed and further the modification application with prayer for modifying the order passed in review application, has also been dismissed.
When we examine the application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, moved by the applicant, it emerges that the same has been filed after the review petition and the modification application is dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while testing its maintainability. It is trite law that ?once the proceeding stands terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen the proceedings by means of miscellaneous application.
In case of State of UP Vs Brahm Datt Sharma and another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179, it has been held by the Apex Court that no miscellaneous application could be entertained to revive proceeding in decided matters. The relevant portion, i.e., paragraph 10 of the abovesaid judgement is reproduced hereinunder:-
"The High Court's order is not. sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subse- quent events after two years. If the respondent was ag- grieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution chal- lenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous applica- tion in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning."
Admittedly, the instant recall application has been filed after the final judgement and order dated 13.09.2017 passed in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 and that too subsequent to the dismissal of the review application as well as the modification application and therefore the matter of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgement quoted as above.
In view of the aforesaid submission and discussion, we find no merit in this application, resultantly, the recall application is hereby rejected.
The applications for amendment in the recall application bearing CMA No. 36 of 2023 and CMA No. 37 of 2023 are misconceived, hence also rejected.
While departing from the aforesaid order, this Court has noticed the fact from the supplementary affidavit dated 06.10.2023 filed by the counsel for the IGRUA that after the matter was transmitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the case was registered as T.A. No. - 02 of 2018, which is still pending consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is expected from the applicant to appear and pursue his case before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In case, the applicant appears before the Central Administrative Tribunal and pursue his case, then it is expected that the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal shall expedite the proceedings by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and those proceedings may be concluded in expedition, preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
5. The applicant prays that the case may be listed after one week.
6. Accordingly, list this case on 30.09.2024.
7. Office is directed to send back the record to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, which was summoned vide order dated 09.11.2022, if not already sent back."
3. The applicant-respondent no.1, appearing in person, submits that Mr. B.K. Verma, who was claiming himself as Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi had misled the Court and, therefore, he may be summoned and punished.
4. Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate, who is appearing for Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi informs the Court that the service of the applicant was terminated vide order dated 23.07.2002, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the writ Court vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016. The said order dated 23.12.2016 was challenged by Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi in the present Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017, which was allowed after hearing the parties vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2017. He further submits that applicant/respondent filed a number of applications in this decided Special Appeal as well as contempt applications under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.
5. It is also submitted that Contempt Application (Civil) No.1629 of 2024 (Sunder Lal Maurya Vs. Krishnendu Gupta, Mukhya Abhiyanta Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Amethi), which was filed against Krishnendu Gupta, Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Amethi) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 with a cost of Rs.1 lac (rupees one lac) with the observations that applicant is habitual in filing repeated contempt applications as well as applications under Section 340 CrPC against the officials of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Amethi. However, later on, the application moved by the applicant to recall the order dated 23.04.2024 in regard to the fine imposed upon the applicant showing his pity condition, the fine of rupees one lac imposed upon the applicant was recalled by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024. Moreover, the applicant also stated before this Court at the time of disposal of recall application i.e. C.M. Application No.3 of 2024 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1629 of 2024 that he will co-operate in the proceedings of T.A No.2 of 2018 (Sunder Lal Maurya Vs. Civil Aviation), pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in terms of the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in present Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 13.09.2017. It is also informed the aforesaid T.A No.2 of 2018 has already been decided by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2025.
6. The judgment and orders dated 23.04.2024 and 21.10.2024 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1629 of 2024 are extracted as under :
"Order dated 23.04.2024 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1629 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunder Lal Maurya Opposite Party :- Krishnendu Gupta, Mukhya Abhiyanta Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Sunder Lal Maurya, applicant in person, Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Srivastava as well as Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for opposite party.
2. The present contempt application has been filed with the following prayer:-
"The applicant makes the following request to the Honorable Court that Mr. Krishnendu Gupta, representing himself as the Director of Indira Gandhi National Flying Academy, Fursatganj Air Field, Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, has filed a petition as Director on behalf of the Academy in the Miscellaneous Application No. 66107/2019 pending in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017. By signing the Vakalatnama, the Hon'ble Court was misled by appearing on behalf of the original contemnor Shri V.K. in the ongoing contempt proceedings in the said miscellaneous case and the Hon'ble Court was diverted from the path of justice by deception. In such a situation, contempt proceedings be initiated against Shri Krishnendu Gupta."
3. Applicant submits that his service was terminated, as a result, he filed Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 (S/S); Sunder Lal Maurya Vs Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy which was allowed on 23.12.2016, against which, Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy And 2 Ors. Vs. Sunder Lal Maurya & Ors) was preferred which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2017, and while setting aside the order dated 23.12.2016, matter was remitted to Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow.
4. Applicant further submits that he also preferred Review Application No.87412 of 2018 which was dismissed on 24.04.2019. Thereafter, he filed Misc. Application No. 66107 of 2019 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in the Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) against Shri V.K. Verma on 23.05.2019, but against the said application, reply/counter affidavit was filed by opposite party, namely, Krishnendu Gupta mentioning himself as Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Acadamy, Fursatganj Air Field, Amethi (erstwhile Raebareli) (for short 'IGRUA') on 21.01.2020. It is submitted that opposite party misled the Court claiming himself as Director of IGRUA, however, when he was only authorized by Government of India through Ministry of Civil Aviation to look after day-to-day functions of Director of IGRUA, therefore, he committed contempt and for the said contempt, he shall be summoned and punished.
5. Shri Anurag Srivastava as well as Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for opposite party submits that the plea taken by the applicant in the present contempt application was already raised in the previous Contempt Application No.66107 of 2019 under Article 215 of Constitution of India filed by the applicant, which has already been rejected on 25.11.2021. It is, thus, submitted that the present contempt application is nothing but sheer abuse of legal provisions and it may be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions of applicant, learned counsel for the respondent and going through the contents of present application, entire record of Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) as well as other relevant documents, this Court finds that the service of the applicant was terminated, due to which, he preferred Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 (S/S) (supra) which was allowed on 23.12.2016. Thereafter, Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) was filed by the Director, IGRUA and the same was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2017 by setting aside the order dated 23.12.2016 and the matter was remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow considering the statuary provisions.
7. Order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 (S/S) (supra) and order dated 13.09.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) are reproduced as under:
Order dated 23.12.2016 "Judgment reserved on: 22.11.2016 Judgment delivered on: 23.12.2016 Court No. - 7 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2226 of 2003 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Maurya Respondent :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi Fursatganj Counsel for Petitioner :- Inperson,Pt.D.R.Shukla,R.P.Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- B.B. Saxena,Deepak Seth,I.H. Farooqui,Mahendra Kumar Misra,N K Seth,Pratyush Tripathi,Virendra Kumar Dubey A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5782 of 2000 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Maurya Respondent :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriyauran Akadami Fursatganj Counsel for Petitioner :- N.N.Jaiswal,Inperson,R.P. Shukla,Sharad Tiwari,Y.K. Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Seth Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Shri Sunder Lal Maurya, petitioner in person and Shri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties.
Both these writ petitions are by the same petitioner and facts being interlinked, they had been clubbed, heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
The petitioner was appointed as Auto Helper in the Akademi on 31.05.1991 in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940/-. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 11.06.1992 w.e.f. 10.06.1992. The petitioner was promoted vide order dated 02.09.1994 as Tractor Driver in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500/-, as, he was already performing the duties of Driver.
According to the petitioner others were promoted to the post of Driver prior to him on completion of 3 or 4 years of service and thereafter were further promoted to the post of Driver Group-B in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-, but, the petitioner was left out. Being aggrieved he agitated this matter before the authorities, which ultimately resulted in his promotion to the post of tractor Driver on 02.09.1994, with the assurance that soon he shall be granted further promotion as the matter had been referred to the Government. As he was not promoted as assured, therefore, being aggrieved he along with one Ram Chandra Singh filed writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 claiming promotion on the post of driver and thereafter to the post of Driver Group-"B" and an interim order was passed therein on 18.10.2000 to the effect, in case the work of driver is being taken from the petitioner he shall be paid salary as driver, subject to further orders of the Court.
It is the contention of Shri Sunder Lal Maurya who has appeared and argued the matter in person that peeved by the filing of this writ petition the concerned Officer of the Uran Akademi threatened him and the other petitioner Ram Chandra Singh with dire consequences if the petition was not withdrawn. Consequently, Ram Chandra Singh withdrew the writ petition and as, the petitioner did not do so, he was visited with Disciplinary proceedings resulting in his removal from service, even though, inspite of similar misdemenours having been alleged against Sri Ram Chandra Singh no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, because he withdrew the petition. It is these disciplinary proceedings which have been challenged in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003.
The petitioner was served a charge sheet dated 11.07.2001 by Shri D.K. Mahesh, Chief Administrative Officer initiating disciplinary proceedings against him, alleging refusal to comply orders to cut grass in violation of Rule 23(1) involving willful insubordination or disobedience, by not obeying the directions of the superior officer contained in letter dated 08.09.2000 for driving the Tractor and cutting grass with the use of shrub master attached to it. There were two other allegations regarding violation of Rule 23(3) of the Conduct Rules in willful slowing down in performance of work, malingering or abetement or instigation thereof, which was not found to be proved against him, and violation of relevant Rule 23(8) of the Conduct Rules regarding breach of any order pertaining to conduct and discipline or any law or rules applicable to the establishment, which was found proved. The petitioner is said to have submitted a reply dated 13.08.2001, but, the said reply was not found to be satisfactory by the Chief Administrative Officer Shri D.K. Mahesh, who vide his order dated 17.10.2001 decided to go ahead with the inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against him. Accordingly, he appointed an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 21.10.2001 informed the Disciplinary Authority that the post on which he was working itself had not been created as per law, therefore, the initiation of proceedings by him was de-hors the Rules. Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 03.11.2001 withdrew his earlier letter dated 29.10.2001 and thereafter, on 07.12.2001 withdrew from the inquiry itself. The petitioner repeatedly raised objections that initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings by the Chief Administrative Officer itself was de-hors the Rules, therefore, first and foremost the validity of the Disciplinary Authority's promotion as Chief Administrative Officer and initiation of inquiry by him should be established and in the absence of it, he should not be compelled to participate in the inquiry, which is evident from various documents on record. Another Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 10.01.2002. The petitioner declined to participate in the inquiry for the aforesaid reason as is evident from various documents on record.
In these circumstances, ex-parte inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer and the report is annexed as Annexure No. 14 to the Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003.
The said inquiry report was served upon the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 20.05.2002 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (hereinafter referred as ''CAO') proposing punishment of removal from service. A response dated 19.06.2002 was submitted by the petitioner, a copy of which has not been filed by him, but, the reply was not found satisfactory, the CAO Shri D. K. Mahesh did not find extenuating circumstances to show any leniency, accordingly, he imposed the punishment of removal from service.
The petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition, but, was relegated to the remedy of appeal which on being filed was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2003. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 was filed. Its relief clause is quoted herein below:-
"a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary, quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the opposite party no.-2/3 and also to quash the impugned orders of punishment dated 23-7-2002 passed by the opposite party no.-2 and also the order dated 23-1-2003 passed in appeal by the opposite party no.-1, as contained in ANNEXURE NO.-15 & 21 respectively with the writ petition and the petitioner may be reinstated to his service with all the consequential benefits."
The main ground of challenge raised before the Authorities, as also, before this Court, is the jurisdictional incompetence of Shri D.K. Mahesh to take such action, as, according to the petitioner under Regulation 28 of the Conduct and Discipline Rules, as per Schedule I thereto, the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose the penalty of removal referred in Regulation 27 was one holding the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer and not the Chief Administrative Officer, moreover the latter post was never created with the approval of the Central Government as per the Rules of the Society, therefore, the incumbent of the said post Shri Mahesh was not authorized to take action against the petitioner.
The main contention on behalf of the petitioner appearing in person was that Shri D.K. Mahesh, who had been arrayed in person, as also by designation i.e. Chief Administrative Officer, was illegally promoted as Chief Administrative Officer without the post ever having been sanctioned in accordance with the Rules and CAO not being the competent authority under Schedule I of Regulation 28 could not have initiated the proceedings nor imposed the punishment. Secondly, the impugned action was mala-fide on account of filing of the earlier writ petition seeking promotion. According to the petitioner, there were various documents on record including an order of Chief Vigilance Commission which established that there was illegality in the promotion of Shri D.K. Mahesh, who was not competent to take action against him. It was also contended that the opposite parties had repeatedly filed affidavit before this Court in the contempt proceedings etc. stating that the matter regarding approval of the post of Chief Administrative Officer was still pending consideration in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Various documents which are on record were referred by the petitioner in this regard.
In nutshell the challenge is on the ground firstly of illegal promotion of Shri D.K. Mahesh on a non-existence post, who according to the petitioner was not his Disciplinary Authority. Secondly on grounds of mala-fide.
Shri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently asserted that the petitioner having been appointed as Auto Helper and thereafter having been promoted as Tractor Driver was asked to cut grass with the help of a shrub master, but, he declined. Such disobedience in the Akademi was not acceptable. As, inspite of several warnings his conduct did not improve, therefore, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner under a misconception, did not participate in the inquiry, as, he was of the belief that the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings by Shri D.K. Mahesh itself was without authority, which according to Shri Srivastava is factually and legally incorrect. His contention is that initially a post of Chief Finance and Administrative Officer was created, but, nobody was appointed against it. Thereafter a decision was taken to create a post of Chief Administrative Officer in lieu of the aforesaid post in the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- (subsequently Rs. 3700-5000/-) vide 15th meeting of the Governing Council dated 06.04.1989 and its pay-scale was duly approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation vide letter dated 08.02.1990. Shri D.K. Mahesh was promoted on this post as Chief Administrative Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- on 31.10.1994. Till date he is continuing on the said post and getting the pay-scale commensurate thereto and the insistence of the petitioner to the contrary is without any basis. He has relied heavily upon the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 16.04.2015 and documents annexed therewith in support of his contention. Referring to the Rules and Regulations which permit the Governing Council to delegate the powers to the Director and the Director to delegate it further to other authorities, he has referred to the instrument of delegation of Administrative Financial powers annexed with the said counter affidavit under which the Governing Council deemed it necessary for the efficient running of the day-to-day Administration of the Akademi and in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Society to direct by the said general order that the Officers mentioned in the order may exercise the functions and powers thereby delegated. The post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer was mentioned in Para 1(c) as Departmental Head therein. The post of Chief Administrative Officer having been created in lieu of the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as mentioned in the said counter affidavit and the same having been approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation on 08.02.1990 the Director in exercise of his power under the Note to Clause 1 of the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative and Financial Powers, designated the Chief Administrative Officer as ''Departmental Head' against the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as referred in para 1(C) of Administrative Powers with the stipulation that the Chief Administrative Officer will exercise his power of Departmental Head as given in Scheduled- I of Regulation 28 of IGRUA Employees Conduct and Discipline Rules vide his order dated 30.04.1999, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the first counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 to 4. The said order of the Director reads as under:-
"Further to office memo no:DO:42:503 dated 4th March 1999, in exercise of powers vested under the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative and Financial Powers under Note of Para-1, the Chief Administrative Officer is hereby designated as Departmental Head against the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as referred in Para-1(c) of Administrative Powers.
Chief Administrative Officer will therefore exercise the powers of Departmental Head as given in the Schedule-1 of regulation-28 of IGRUA Employees conduct and Discipline Rules."
Therefore, according to him Shri D.K. Mahesh, the Chief Administrative Officer was duly authorized to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner.
As regards mala-fide he contended that there was no mala-fide involved. He also relied upon the third supplementary counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties in response to the written brief of the petitioner dated 20.05.2016 to contend that incomplete documents and facts have been mentioned in the said brief. With reference to the report of the Committee on rationalization of designation and pay structure in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi which was heavily relied upon by the petitioner to contend that all the promotions were illegal, it was contended, based on the third supplementary counter affidavit, that based on the said report the Ministry of Civil Aviation vide its letter dated 15.07.1996 forwarded the report of the said Committee for follow up action, which was placed in the 32nd meeting of the Governing Council dated 12.12.1996. The agenda item no. 8 of the said meeting is annexed as Annexure No. SCA-4 to the third supplementary counter affidavit which shows that a proposal for regularizing the irregularities/ illegalities was placed before the Governing Council with request to rectify as per the suggestion of the Joint Secretary (FA) as referred therein. Annexure No. SCA-5 to the said affidavits are the minutes of the 31st meeting of the Governing Council, which shows that the Governing Council after reviewing the report of the Committee dated 15.07.1996 referred herein above regarding the rationalization of designation and pay structure of IGRUA, the report along with proposals given in the agenda item no. 8 with the Annexures referred therein was approved. The follow up action was thus approved. In view of this, he contended that whatever deficiencies, if any, were there, stood regularized in the year 1996 itself, when the charge sheet had not even been issued to the petitioner.
The first and foremost thing which is to be borne in mind is that this Court is seized firstly with the validity of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which has been questioned in the Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 and secondly his claim to promotion in the connected writ petition filed earlier, which would fall for consideration only if he succeeds in the disciplinary matter.
The contention of the petitioner, who appeared in person, was that under Rule 28 of the Conduct and Discipline Regulations the authority competent to impose the punishments mentioned in Regulation 27 and the corresponding Appellate Authority as shown in Schedule-I as amended in 1999 with the approval of the Government of India dated 29.04.1999 shows that Departmental Head is the authority competent to remove a Driver, including Tractor Driver. Regulation 27(f) refers to the punishment of removal from service and Serial No. 14 of the Annexure referred in the approval of the Government of India mentions the post of Driver, which includes Tractor Drivers. The note to the said Schedule as amended in 1999 says that Departmental Head means as defined in the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative Powers. The Instrument of Delegation of Administrative Powers in Para 1(c) refers to the Chief Administration and Finance Officer as the Departmental Head, which has never been amended. Therefore, according to him, the Chief Administrative Officer was not his Disciplinary Authority. In fact, the said post was never created validly, as such, Shri D.K. Mahesh who in any case was illegally promoted against the said post was not competent to function as Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. He also alleged mala-fide against the opposite parties and stated that he was victimised and punished for having filed the earlier writ petition seeking promotion, which angered the authorities who were retired Air Force personnel as also the opposite parties herein. No action was taken against Ram Chandra Singh, even though, same allegation of refusal to cut grass was levelled against him also, as, he withdrew from the writ petition, which clearly establishes that such action against the petitioner was clearly mala-fide.
Indira Gandhi Rashtirya Uran Akademi was established in the year 1986 to impart training in flying of Aircrafts. It was registered as a Society. It has its Rules and Regulations, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. SCA-2 along with second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. According to it, its Executive Council is the highest policy making body. The next Highest Officer is the Director. Then there are other authorities appointed by the Governing Council. Functions and powers of the Council are mentioned in Clause 8 of the Rules and Regulations. In the discharge of its functions, the Council is to be guided by such directives on questions of policy as may be given to it by the Central Government, as per Clause 8.3. Under Clause 8.4(4) the Council is empowered to frame Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws for the conduct of the affairs of the Akademi and to add, to amend or repeal them from time to time with the approval of the Central Government.
Under Clause 8.4(10) the Council is empowered, inter alia, to create posts of and above the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000 with prior approval of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). The Council is to be guided by the economy instrument issued by the Central Government from time to time while creating posts under its delegated powers.
Under Clause 8.4(15) the Council is empowered to delegate its powers to the Director, and, through him or directly to other Members of Staff of the Akademi or to any Committee appointed by it. Clause 10 deals with the functions and powers of the Director. Under Clause 12 the Council is empowered, for facilitating smooth running of the Akademi, to delegate such powers vested in it, as may be necessary to the Director, and through him or directly, to other Members of Staff of the Akademi or to Committee appointed by it.
As per Clause 18 all selections and appointments of the staff of the Akademi except that of the Director, shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules and Regulations, by; (a) the Council, if the appointment is made in the grade equivalent to Grade ''A' and above in Central Government. In other cases, the Director.
Under Clause 19, the Council is empowered with the sanction of the Central Government, to frame, amend or repeal Rules and Regulations not in consistent with these Rules, for the administration and management of the affairs of the Akademi, and in particular to provide for the matters mentioned therein including the terms and tenure of appointment, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of the officers and staff of the Akademi. The Akademi has framed the Conduct and Disciplinary Rules with the approval of the Central Government dated 29.10.1987 under the said provision, a copy of which is on record.
Under Clause 20 the Council may alter these Rules and Regulations at any time by a Resolution passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Such alterations shall take effect after they are approved by the Central Government.
Rule 28 of the Disciplinary and Conduct Rules framed under the Rules and Regulation of the Society with the approval of the Central Government reads as under:-
"28. The authority competent to impose the punishments mentioned in Regulation 27 and the corresponding appellate authority are shown in Schedule 1. The competent authority may at any time administer a warning to an employee for a minor misdemeanour. No formal proceedings shall be necessary in such cases."
Schedule-1 as amended in the year 1999 and approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation vide letter dated 29.04.1999 reads as under:-
"APPENDIX-A SCHEDULE-I INDIRA GANDHI RASHTRIYA URAN AKADEMI Statement showing Competent and Appellate Authority Class of employees Penalties as per Regulation 27 Competent Authority Appellate Authority Employees at S.No.
12. 13. 14. and15
(a) to (d)
(e) to (g) Dy. Departmental Head Departmental Head Departmental Head Chief Instructor Employees at Sl. No. 8, 9 ,10 & 11
(a) to (d)
(e) to (g) Departmental Head Chief Instructor Chief Instructor Director Employees at Sl. No. 7, 6 and 5
(a) to (d)
(e) to (g) Chief Instructor Director Director Chairman, Governing Council Employees at Sl. No. 2, 3 and 4
(a) to (d)
(e) to (g) Director Chairman, Governing Council Chairman, Governing Council N.B. Departmental Head ] (As defined in the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative Dy. Departmental Head] Powers)"
Serial No. 14 referred in the Schedule relates to Driver as per a separate Annexure which is on record as pointed out by Shri Srivastava.
Prior to the said amendment of 1999 Schedule-I read as under:-
"SCHEDULE-I INDIRA GANDHI RASHTRIYA URAN AKADEMI Statement showing Competent and Appellate Authorities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Class of Employees Penalties as per Competent Authority Appellate Authority Regulation 27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Employees at Sl.No. 15, 14, 13
(a) to (g) Chief Admin. & Firnance Chief Instructor Officer/Chief Flying Instructor/Chief Ground Instructor/ Chief Engineer Chief instructor Employees at Sl. No. 12,11,10,9 and 8
(b) to (g) Chief Instructor Director Employees at Sl.No. 7,6 and 5
(a) to (f) (g) Chief Instructor Director Director Executive Committee Employees at Sl.
No.4.
(a) to (f) (g) Chief Instructor Director Director Executive Committee Employees at Sl. No. 3and 2"
(a) & (b)
(c) to (g) Director Executive Committee Executive Committee Governing Council
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Even in this schedule there is no mention of the post of Chief Administrative Officer as the competent authority under Regulation 28 to impose any punishment.
A copy of aforesaid Schedules as also the order of the Government of India dated 29.04.1999 was provided by Shri O.P. Srivastava during the course of hearing and is on record.
Para 1 of the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative and Financial Powers referable to Clause 8.4(15) read with Clause 12 of the Rules and Regulations (Annexure No. SA-2 to the second supplementary counter affidavit), as approved by the Government of India on 20.08.1987, reads as under:-
"ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS The Governing Council of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya uran Society (hereinafter referred to as "Council") deems it necessary for the efficient running of the day-to-day administration of the Akademi and in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Society do hereby by this general order directing that the officers mentioned in this order may exercise the functions and powers hereby delegated:
Nomination of Officers to exercise powers: 1. The Delegation of Powers under this Instrument shall be exercised by the Officers named hereunder to exercise the functions and powers delegated hereby to each of the said officers subject to the provisions of rules, regulations and instructions in force from time to time:
A. Director B. Chief Instructor C. Departmental Heads Chief Engineer Chief Flying Instructor Chief Ground Instructor Chief Administrative and Finance Officer D. Deputy Departmental Heads Flying Instructor Sr. Simulator Instructor Dy. Chief Engineer Ground Instructor Plant Engineer Operations officers Accounts Officers Administrative Officer Note: In case of change of designation or deletions, the Director is authorised to designate the category to which the new designation belongs. In the case of additions, the Director is authorised to designate the category to which the new designation belongs, keeping in view of the range of pay scales applicable to the posts, which have already been included in the category."
On a conjoint reading of Regulation 28, Schedule I referred therein as amended in 1999 and quoted herein above and Para 1(c) of the Instrument of Delegation which is also quoted herein above, it is evident that for removal of a Driver from the service of the Akademi the authority competent to pass an order is the Departmental Head, as defined in Para 1(c) which is the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer and not the Chief Administrative Officer. By means of the aforesaid Instrument of Delegation, the Governing Council by the aforesaid general order, directed that the Officials mentioned therein may exercise functions and powers thereby delegated, thus, the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer was delegated the power of the Departmental Head. He was nominated to exercise the powers of the Departmental Head.
Reference may also be made to the Note to Para-1, as, it is on this provision that the opposite parties rely to contend that the Director exercising his power under it, issued the order dated 30.04.1999 and designated the Chief Administrative Officer as Departmental Head against the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as referred in Para 1(c) of Administrative Powers with the stipulation that he will now exercise the powers of Departmental Head as given in the Schedule-I of Regulation 28 of IGRUA Employees Conduct and Discipline Rules.
The Note to Para 1 of the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative and Financial Powers under the heading of Administrative Powers provides firstly that in case of change in designation or delegations, the Director is authorized to designate the category to which the new designation belongs. The moot point is was there any change in designation or delegations and who was competent to do so. Secondly, the note provided that in the case of additions, the Director is authorized to designate the category to which the new designation belongs in view of the range of pay-scales applicable to the posts, which have already been included in the category. Thus, the power of the Director under the said note was only "to designate the category" (a) in case of change in designations or delegations and (b) in case of additions, to which, the new designation belongs keeping in view the range of pay-scales to the posts which have already been included in the category, nothing more. If there was a change in the designation of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer or there was a change in the delegations by the Governing Council in the instrument of delegation itself, then, the Director was authorized to designate the category to which this change was referable. He was also authorized in case of additions which, obviously, could only be made by the Governing Council, but, there is nothing on record to show that any of the eventuality referred herein occurred as per Rules.
Therefore, the order dated 30.04.199 passed by the Director designating the Chief Administrative as Departmental Head against the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer referred in Para 1(c) of Instrument of Delegation by the Governing Council with the stipulation that he will now exercise the powers of Departmental Head as given in Schedule-I of Regulation 28 of IGRUA Employees Conduct and Discipline Rules, was clearly in excess of the authority vested in the Director and contrary to the decision of the Governing Council. The Note to Para-1 did not authorize the Director to take such action. The scope of the said Note has already been discussed herein above. Ultimately the Director usruped the powers not vested in him by the said Note on some misconception of its scope.
As already referred herein above on a conjoint reading of Regulation 28, the Schedule-I as amended in the year 1999 and Para 1(c) of the Instrument of Delegation which remains unamended till date, it is the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer, who as Departmental Head who was authorized to impose the punishment of removal from service of the Akademi, as referred in Regulation 27(f). There is no mention of the post of Chief Administrative Officer in the aforesaid provision either as the Departmental Head or the authority competent to impose the punishment of removal or to proceed of such major punishment.
Now coming to the question raised by the petitioner in person that in fact the post of Chief Administrative Officer had never been validly created, therefore, the assumption of the said post by Shri D. K. Mahesh and initiation of Discipline Proceedings against the petitioner by him was clearly de-hors the Regulations as his promotion itself being against an unsanctioned post he could not exercise the powers of Disciplinary Authority/ Departmental Head for initiating such proceedings nor for punishing the petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to quote Clause 8.4(10) of the Rules of the Akademi/Society, which reads as under:-
"8.4(10) Create technical administrative and other posts for the Akademi provided that proposals relating to emoluments structure i.e., adoption of pay scales, allowances and revision thereof and creation of posts of and above the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000 would need the prior approval of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Expenditure), The Council, while creating posts under its delegated powers, shall be guided by the economy instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time"
It is also relevant at this stage to quote the subsequent order of the Government dated 06.06.1990 filed by the petitioner along with brief facts with dates and events, copies of which were served upon upon the learned counsel for the opposite parties during the course of hearing, which reads as under:-
"No.A.33025/34/85-VE(PIN) Government of India Ministry of Civil Aviation ....
New Delhi dt. 6th June, 1990 To The Director, (Capt. N.K. Dawar), Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy, Distt. Raebareli U.P. (PIN. 229302) SUBJECT:- Amendments to Rules and Regulations of I.G.R.U.A. .........
Sir, Please refer to your letter No. IGRUA: FIN:MIN: 90:480 dated the 7th March, 1990 on the subject noted above.
2. The proposal of the Academy for delegating Powers to the Governing Council to create posts, the maximum of scale of pay which does not exceed Rs. 5700/- per month has been examined in the light of existing orders of the Finance Ministry (Deppt. of Expenditure) which are applicable to all Autonomous Bodies, including those for which the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry may be the Chairman of the Governing Council concerned. It has been decided that the powers of the Governing Council of I.G.R.U.A. for creation of posts in the Academy will be restricted to posts, the maximum of the scale of pay of which does not exceed Rs. 4500/- per month and for creation of higher posts, prior approval of the Government would be obtained.
3. This issues with the concurrence of Integrated Finance Division of this Ministry vide their note dt. 24.5.90.
Yours faithfully, (V. JAYACHANDRAN) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA."
On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions/ letters it is revealed that the Governing Council was not competent to create any post in the Akademi of and above the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- and w.e.f. 06.06.1999 it was not competent to create any post, the maximum of the scale of pay of which exceeded Rs. 4500/- per month, on its own i.e. it could only create such post with the approval of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure).
The post of Chief Administrative Officer as mentioned in the 15th meeting of the Governing Council dated 06.07.189 and the document annexed therewith refers to the said post as carrying the scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- and thereafter, the letter of Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 08.02.1990 (Annexure No. SA-7 to the second supplementary counter affidavit) refers to the said post in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-, thus, its creation by the Governing Council could not have been valid it had not done with the prior approval of the Ministry of Civil Aviation under the consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure).
It is not in dispute that in the year 1986 the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer was created and not that of Chief Administrative Officer as is evident from the minutes of the 10th emergent meeting of the Governing Council of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Society held on 16.1.1986, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. SA-3 to the second supplementary counter affidavit, but, the said post was never filled up, instead, on 23.11.1986 (Annexure No. S-4 to the said affidavit) one Shri V. C. Sharma was appointed as Chief Administrative Officer, although, there was no such post created by the Governing Council in terms of Clause 8.4(10) of the Rules and Regulations, which required prior approval of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) in matters of creation of posts of and above the pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- by the Government of India. The appointment of Shri Sharma was in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000/-, which could not have been made unless the post had been created as aforesaid.
Schedule-I as existing prior to 1999 refers to the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as the authority competent to impose the punishment of removal referred in Regulation 27 and not the Chief Administrative Officer. Shri D. K. Mahesh was promoted as Chief Administrative Officer on 31.10.1994. For the reasons discussed earlier, the change in 1999 as approved by the Government of India does not make any difference as the ''Departmental Head' referred therein, continued to be Chief Administrative and Finance Officer as per the Instrument of Delegation by the Governing Council as approved by the Government of India.
The letter dated 08.02.1990 upon which heavy reliance was placed by the opposite parties may have been issued in the context of pay-scales, but, there is no document to show the creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer in terms of the aforesaid provisions, a fact which is established by the report of the Committee set up in this regard by the Government of India, which shall be discussed hereinafter. There is nothing to show that the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) was ever consulted.
Further more, as long as, the competent authority under Schedule-I referred in Regulation 28 read with Para 1(c) of the Instrument of Delegation was the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer, unless, this was amended, there was no way the alleged Chief Administrative Officer could have exercised disciplinary powers relating to petitioner's post.
True, that nobody was ever appointed on the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer and in fact, one Shri V.C. Sharma was initially appointed as Chief Administrative Officer (without the post having been created) way back on 23.11.1986 and thereafter, Shri D.K. Mahesh was appointed on the said post on 30.10.1994, but, the fact is that there is no material to establish a valid creation of this post in lieu of the earlier post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer in terms of Rule 8.4(10) and order of the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 06.06.1990 nor is there any prior approval as already referred herein above.
It is in this context that the report of the Committee on rationalization of designations and pay structure in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi becomes relevant, as, all these matters relating to alleged illegal creation of posts and promotion against them were referred by the Government of India to this Committee, a copy of which containing relevant extract is on record having been filed by the petitioner along with his brief of facts with date and events, as also, by the opposite parties along with their third supplementary counter affidavit. The report is an indictment of the Akademi for all the ills prevailing therein including illegal promotions on various posts at almost every level and illegal creation of posts contrary to guidelines of the Government of India and Rules.
Para 11 part of the said report specifically deals with the creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer, therefore, it is very relevant and it reads as under:-
"11. OTHER ASPECTS The committee also examined certain other aspects of functioning of the Akademi, which are as under:-
11.1 It was observed that requirement of one post of Chief Admin. And Finance Officer had been projected in the Project Report at the time of consideration of the project by the Expenditure Finance Committee. In 1989, IGRUA in their proposal for formulation of the Pay Structure for the Akademi, had referred to creation of one post of Chief Finance Officer/ Chief Admin. Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000. The Govt. had also approved the proposed pay scale and issued orders. The post was initially operated as that of Chief Admin. and Finance Officer. However subsequently, Director IGRUA decided to operate the post as that of Chief Administrative Officer, truncating the finance element form the job content. Even though, the Governing Council of the Akademi, in its 15th meeting held on 6th April, 1989, had regularised operation of the post as that of Chief Admin. Officer, the same required approval of the Government being a Group ''A' post. In this connection, attention is also invited to Deptt. Of Civil Aviation letter No. A33025/7/89-PIN dated 4th May, 1989, wherein it was clearly laid down that in respect of proposals requiring approval of the Government, Governing Council can only give clearances ''subject to approval of the Govt.', and that approval of Govt. should invariably be obtained in such cases. Since approval of the Government for operation of the post as that of Chief Admin. Officer had not been obtained, action of the Akademi in truncating the finance element from the job content was not in order.
It appears that originally, at the time of consideration of the project for setting up of the Akademi by Expenditure Finance Committee, the intention was to have a combined post to look after both the Administration and finance functions at a sufficiently higher level, who could head the two disciplines independently. However the Committee noticed that the post is presently being operated as that of Chief Administrative Officer only, which is not in order. The Committee further examined the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that it may not be necessary to have separate posts of Chief Admin. Officer and Chief Finance Officer. Having regard to all the relevant factors such as the size of the Akademi, nature of its functioning and number of employees etc., it would be sufficient to have one post of Chief Admin. And Finance Officer, who could be assisted by a Sr. Admin. Officer and a Sr. Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-45000. This view has been taken into account and reflected in the Assessment of Manpower detailed at Annexure II.
Incidentally, the qualifications and eligibility criteria was also not adhered to in selection and filling of the post of Chief Administrative Officer. The officer recruited to the post neither did have any professional qualification such as MBA nor the required length of service and background of finance or accounts. It was also noticed that no formal DPC was held for selection and no other internal or external candidates were considered.
(emphasis supplied by Court) 11.2 The committee similarly observed that there were a number of other cases (more than 150), where promotions had been made in the recent past without going through the generally accepted principles in this regard. The Committee recommends that all such promotions should be reviewed and necessary corrective action taken as may be appropriate and feasible at this stage.
(emphasis supplied by Court) 11.3 The Committee further observed that Ex-servicemen appointed as Security Guards had been given a higher pay scale as compared to their civilian counterparts. This against is not in conformity with the Govt. instructions on the subject which only allow protection of the pay drawn by Ex-servicemen before their retirement within the pay scale approved for the post to which they are appointed. IN view of this fixation of pay of Ex-servicemen appointed as Security Guards needs to be reviewed and their pay fixed in accordance with the instructions of the Govt. within the pay scale approved for the post.
11.4 The committee also observed that even though guidelines have been prescribed in the booklet called "Instrument of Delegations of Administrative and Financial Powers" laying down the levels at which, decisions are to be taken in the Akademi, they are at certain places, not consistent with the board guidelines and instructions of the Government. The powers delegated to the Director for creation of posts vide Rule 3 of the instrument is one such example. (emphasis supplied by Court) With a view to streamline the procedures, it is essential to review the delegations contained in the booklet and bring them in conformity the Government guidelines. The Committee therefore recommends that the Instrument of Delegation of Powers should be reviewed immediately and revised document submitted for approval of the Governing Council and Government.
11.5 Similarly, it was also observed that certain provisions in the Memorandum and Articles of the Akademi, specially those relating to the powers for creation of posts and sanctioning of capital expenditure, were not consistent with the general guidelines of the Govt. The Committee therefore recommends that Memorandum and Articles of the Akademi should also be reviewed and necessary changes made so as to bring it in conformity with the Govt. instructions and guidelines."
It is evident that there was no valid creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer. (emphasis supplied by Court) Thereafter in Para 12 the Committee submitted its recommendation as under:-
"12. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Summing up, the recommendation of the Committee are as under:-
i) .............
ii) ...........
iii)...........
iv) ..........
v) ...........
vi) ...........
vii) The appointments/ promotions made in the recent past, which are not in conformity with the prescribed procedures, should be reviewed and necessary corrective action taken.
(Para 11.1 & 11.2)
viii) ...........
ix) .............
x) ..............
xi) ............
xii) The Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Instrument laying down the delegation of powers of the Akademi should be reviewed so as to ensure that the provisions contained therein are in accordance with general instructions of the Govt. on various subjects and also bringing in more clarity in the procedures.
(para 11.4 & 11.5)
13. The committee expresses its deep sense of gratitude to the officers and employees of the Akademi for extending necessary cooperation in completing this study.
(P. A. R. Kumar) (P. J. Vincent) (Kishan Singh) Member Member Member Secretary"
It appears that this report was sent by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the Akademi for follow up action vide its letter dated 15.07.1996, which has not been brought on record by the opposite parties. The matter was placed in the 32nd meeting of the Governing Council of the Akademi already referred to herein above whereupon the decision was taken to regularize the illegalities on the suggestion of the concerned officers, as, has already been noticed herein above while recording the contentions of Shri Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
Even though, it is claimed that the Governing Council in its 32nd meeting regularized the illegalities by making necessary adjustments, with respect, this Court is of the view that, there is nothing on record to suggest the alleged regularization of creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer in terms of Rule 8.4(10) of the Rules of the Society and the Government Order dated 06.06.1990 i.e. there is nothing to show a valid creation of the said post in terms thereof nor a valid promotion of a person fulfilling the necessary prerequisites and qualification in the light of the report of the Committee quoted herein above, especially Para 11 thereof, which have been highlighted. There is no approval by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Expenditure), In this context, it is also relevant to refer to the vigilance report dated 31.12.2003 recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Shri D.K. Mahesh with regard to certain illegalities committed by him, as also, action regarding his alleged irregular promotion as Chief Administrative Officer, whereupon, the matter was sent by the Government of India to the Director of the Akademi for appropriate action. Based thereon a punishment order was passed against him. However, as regards the irregular promotion a note was made therein that the matter had already been referred earlier to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, though, it is the same Ministry which had asked the Director to take a decision in respect thereof also.
Keeping this in light, this Court on 16.09.2016 had passed an order requiring the Union of India to clarify the position. Affidavit filed by the Union of India in this regard, with respect, does not disclose the correct and complete factual position. It only refers to the initial creation of the post of Chief Administrative and Finance Officer by the Governing Council on 16.03.1986 in its 10th emergent meeting and the proposal of the Akademi for approval of pay-scale and allowances vide letters dated 08.08.1989 and 27.11.1989 under Rule 8.4(10) of the Rules and Regulations as having been approved by the Government and the decision conveyed to the Akademi on 08.02.1990, which is apparently incorrect, as, there is no reference to Rule 8.4(10) in the said letters and if it was so, then, why the Committee was constituted by the Government of India subsequently in the year 1996 to enquire, inter alia, the alleged illegal creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer and illegal promotion of Shri D. K. Mahesh thereon in 1994, which submitted its report in June/July, 1996 (quoted earlier) consequently mentioning in Para 11 that the said post was not validly created and promotion thereon was illegal, and in pursuance to which the same Ministry of Civil Aviation directed the Akademi to take follow up action vide its letter dated 15.07.1996 already referred herein above, meaning thereby, the Government of India agreed with the report. It appears that the counter affidavit of the Union of India has not been filed after going through the records correctly and relevant facts, such as, the proceedings which took place after 1990 and as have been noted herein above, have not been mentioned in the said affidavit, therefore, it is not at all reliable. The queries made by this Court vide its order dated 16.09.2016 have not been properly answered.
The Court refrains itself from saying much in this regard suffice is it to say that there is much more to it that what meets the eye. The affidavit of Union of India refers to the complaint against Shri D.K. Mahesh, Chief Administrative Officer and also refers to the decision of the Ministry of Civil Aviation in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission directing the Director of the Akademi to take such action as is deemed fit for the lapses, as also the letter of the Chief Vigilance Commission dated 21.04.2005 contained in Annexure No. 3 to the said affidavit referring to the Vigilance report already referred herein above, it also refers to the order of the Director dated 30.11.2005 by which some minor punishment was imposed upon Shri D.K. Mahesh, however, it conveniently ignores the note appended to the said order addressed to Shri K.K. Pant, Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation by the Director of the Akademi hitting the ball back to the said Ministry with regard to the charge of irregular promotion of Shri D.K. Mahesh as Chief Administrative Officer on the ground that the matter had already been forwarded to it for advise on action to be taken by the Akademi at this stage to rectify the earlier decision taken by the then Director and that the appropriate action will be taken on receipt of the decision/ guidelines from the Ministry. The affidavit conveniently ignores this aspect and Union of India is silent on it. The same Ministry had directed the Director to take a decision, instead of doing so, he sent it back to the Ministry on 30.11.2005 where the ball is pending since then. The attempt to scuttle the issue by the Ministry and the Akademi as aforesaid is sufficient to indicate that the affidavit of the Union of India does not speak complete truth and is falsified by the facts and documents referred herein above. There has been a conscious attempt to sweep the illegality referred above under the carpet.
It is in this context that the repeated assertion by Shri Maurya appearing in person that repeated affidavits have been filed by the officials of the Akademi before this Court that the matter pertaining to approval of creation of post of Chief Administrative Officer is pending at the level of the charge sheet become significant. There are documents on record to show that during the vigilance inquiry Shri Mahesh himself has admitted that the matter of approval for creation of his post before the Government is pending. To the same effect are affidavits filed before this Court.
In this view of the matter the Court finds that the entire Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner initiated by Shri D.K. Mahesh functioning as Chief Administrative Officer are de-hors the Rules of the Society, as also the Conduct and Discipline Rules, both of which have been framed with the approval of the Government of India, as, the competent authority to initiate and impose the Disciplinary punishment upon the petitioner was supposed to be the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer. If no person was appointed on the post, then, appropriate action should have been taken as per Rules to do the needful by the competent authority, but, in the absence of such action, the Director had absolutely no authority under the note to Para 1 of the instrument of delegation to authorize Shri D.K. Mahesh to exercise the powers of Departmental Head/ Competent Authority under Regulation 28 of the Conduct and Discipline Rules vide order dated 30.04.1999 which itself was de-hors the Rules. The post of Chief Administrative Officer was not created as per Rules, promotion of Shri. D. K. Mahesh to the said post, who neither had the requisite qualification nor experience as stated in the above quoted report of the Committee, was also de-hors the Rules. The entire exercise thus suffers from complete lack of jurisdiction in the Officer who initiated the proceedings and ultimately imposed the punishment of removal upon the petitioner.
The Appellate Authority did not dwell upon these aspects of the matter but cursorily brushed aside these issues, inspite of having been specifically raised before him by the petitioner, by making cryptic observations, none of which are sustainable in view of the above discussion.
Considering the fact that with regard to the same allegations against Ram Chandra Singh, who was also the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8782(S/S) of 2000 along with the petitioner herein i.e. Sunder Lal Maurya, no action was taken against him and he withdrew himself from the earlier writ petition, but, based on the same allegation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who continued to pursue the said writ petition and also considering the fact that the same Officer whose promotion and post held by him were being challenged by him before the authorities, as also, the fact that for an allegation of not cutting grass and disobeying certain other orders the imposition of punishment of removal by the same Officer, who was not competent to do so, there is certainly something more than what meets the eye, thereby giving credence to the assertion of the petitioner that he has been discriminated and treated unjustly, as, after all, why no proceeding was initiated against Ram Chandra Singh? was it because he succumbed to the pressure and withdrew from the writ petition, whereas, Maurya did not. The answer is anybody's guess.
n view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings. "
Order dated 13.09.2017 "Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,S.B.Pandey,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sunder Lal Maurya, respondent No.1 who has appeared in person and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondent No.2.
The present intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in two connected writ petitions namely Writ Petition (S/S) No.2226 of 2003 and Writ Petition (S/S) No.5782 of 2000. Both the writ petitions were filed by respondent No.1, Sunder Lal Maurya.
Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition (S/S) No.2226 of 2003 and disposed of Writ Petition (S/S) No.5782 of 2000.
At the outset, Sri Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent No.1 was an employee of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy, Fursatganj Airfield, District Amethi. According to him, said Society being an autonomous body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was notified under Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred to as the "1985 Act") vide notification dated 22nd April, 2008. He further submitted that since both the petitions decided by the learned Single Judge were pending on the date of the notification, therefore, they were liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction under Section 29 of the 1985 Act. He further submitted that these two writ petitions could not have been heard by this Court in view of the exclusion of jurisdiction provided under Section 28 of the 1985 Act.
The issuance of the notification being not in dispute, a copy of the same having been placed before us, we find that at Serial No.117, the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy, Rae Bareli is mentioned in the Notification dated 22nd April, 2008. Once such a notification having been made under Section 14 of the 1985 Act, the jurisdiction of this Court to hear such matters has been excluded and further under Section 29 (2) of the 1985 Act once such a notification is issued, the matter ought to have been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
According to Sri Srivastava, this fact was not in the knowledge of the parties till the time the writ petitions were decided. However, now having acquired knowledge of the said notification he submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge is without jurisdiction in view of provisions made under Section 28 of the 1985 Act. In such circumstances, he further submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the writ petitions may be transferred to the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal.
Having perused the relevant provisions, we find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 is hereby set aside. Both the writ petitions along with records be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, within two months from today whereupon the Tribunal will proceed to decide the same, in accordance to law.
All ancillary proceedings whatever may be pending consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions will also be transfered to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the writ petitions are of the year 2000 and 2003, we expect that the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records. "
8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.09.2017, one Review Application No.87412 of 2018 was also filed by the applicant in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) which was also dismissed on 24.04.2019.
9. Order dated 24.04.2019 passed in Review Application No.87412 of 2018 filed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) is reproduced as under:
"Court No. - 1Review Application No. 87412 of 2018 in re:
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,S.B.Pandey,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Pt. D. R. Shukla, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and Sri V. K.Dubey, learned Counsel for the respondents.
This Review Application has been filed for review of order dated 13.9.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017, Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy and two others v. Sunder Lal Maurya and another.
The Review Petitioner was an employee of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy, Fursatganj Airfield, District Amethi. The said Society being an autonomous body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation was notified under Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The petitions decided by the learned Single Judge were pending on the date of the notification and therefore, a prayer was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 that the matter be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was also submitted that both the writ petitions could not have been heard in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of Section 28 of the 1985 Act.
After considering the aforesaid, learned Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 and transferred records of both the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, an application for recall of the order dated 13.9.2017 was filed by the present petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2018. Order dated 23.7.2018 reads as under:-
"This is an application praying for recall of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2017 passed in the aforementioned special appeal whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act, 1985).
The recall application has been filed by the respondent No.1, who appears in person, alleging that the proviso to Section 29 (1) of the Act, 1985 excludes the application of the said sub-section where any appeal is pending before the High Court. The argument is misconceived inasmuch as the said pendency of appeal would relate to the date of establishment of the Tribunal and not been filed subsequently. The submission that the present special appeal would not be maintainable and would not have been transferred, is thus, misconceived as firstly the present special appeal was filed in the year 2017 and secondly special appeal has not been transferred and only the writ petitions have been transferred.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Sri Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has also been heard.
We have been informed that the Tribunal has already taken cognizance and the same is pending and the dates are being regularly fixed before the Tribunal."
Thereafter, the present review application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 13.9.2017.
As per order dated 23.7.2018, the application for recall of the order was dismissed on merit. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner has drawn our attention to the following decisions and submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of record and therefore the review application be allowed and the order dated 13.9.2017 be reviewed.
(i) M. P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Jahan Khan [(2007) 10 SCC 88]
(ii) S. Nagraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another [1993 Supp (4) SCC 595]
(iii) Board of Control for Cricket in India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others [(2005) 4 SCC 741]
(iv) Ashwin S. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others [(2012) 1 SCC 83]
(v) National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. v. Associated Building Co. Ltd. and others [AIR 1996 SC 403]
(vi) Judgment dated 13.3.2018 passed in Union of India and another v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1636 of 2012
(vii) Judgment dated 8.10.2009 passed in Deepak Khosla and another v. Union of India and others, W.P. (C) 7651/2009
(viii) Judgment dated 10.5.2019 passed in Wg. Cdr. Sudesh Kumar v. Union of India and others, Service Bench No.9763 of 2017
(ix) Judgment dated 21.2.2010 passed in Abdul Salam v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No.191 of 2007 On consideration of the arguments and the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner so also the order dated 13.9.2017 by which the Special Appeal filed by the department was allowed and the recall application filed by the review petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2018, we are of the view that the recall application was nothing but an attempt to review the order dated 13.9.2017.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the decisions cited by the review petitioner are distinguishable in the present facts of the case nor there is any error on the face of the record.
The review application filed by the review petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed."
10. It is also evident from the record that one application, i.e., C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India was filed by the applicant in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) against Shri V.K. Verma in reply to which, counter affidavit was filed by Shri Subhendra Gupta as the work of Director of IGRUA was assigned to him by the Government of India. Moreover, all pleas taken in the present application have already been taken into consideration during the proceedings of the aforesaid contempt application which was dismissed on 25.11.2021. Then he preferred another application, i.e., C.M. Application No.26 of 2022 for modification of the order dated 25.11.2021 passed in C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India which was again rejected by the Court on 28.01.2022.
11. Order dated 25.11.2021 passed in C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as order dated 28.01.2022 passed in C.M. Application No.26 of 2022 in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) is reproduced as under:
Order dated 25.11.2021 "Court No. - 8 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey,Anurag Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Raj Kumar Singh,S.B.Pandey,S.K. Yadav "Warsi",Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
On Application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
1. Heard Sri Sundar Lal Maurya, applicant in person and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties.
2. The applicant-petitioner is a chronic litigant before this Court.
3. The applicant-petitioner was appointed as Auto Helper in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy, Fursatganj, Raebareli ( for short ?the Academy?) on 31.5.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 11.6.1992 w.e.f. 10.6.1992. The applicant-petitioner was promoted vide order dated 2.9.1994 as Tractor Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The applicant-petitioner felt that similarly placed other Drivers were promoted to the post of Driver prior to him on completion of 3 or 4 years of service and, thereafter, they were further promoted to the post of Driver Group-B in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-, he filed Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 claiming promotion on the post of Driver and, thereafter, to the post of Driver Group-B. Vide interim order dated 18.10.2000, this Court directed that in case the work of Driver was being taken from the petitioner, he should be paid salary as Driver, subject to further orders. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which have been challenged by the applicant-petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003.
4. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 allowed Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003 and disposed of Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 and directed that if as a consequence of reinstatement of the petitioner he was entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, his case should be considered for the same in accordance with Rules.
5. The Academy filed Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 against the said judgement and order passed by the a coordinate Bench of this Court. Air Marshal, Vinod Kumar Verma of the Academy claimed to be posted as Director of the Academy, sworned the affidavit in support of the special appeal.
6. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 allowed the special appeal and set aside the judgement and order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Academy is mentioned in the notification dated 22.4.2008 issued under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear such matters, had been excluded and in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, once such a notification was issued on 22.4.2008 in respect of the Academy, the matter ought to have been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Division Bench transferred both the writ petitions along with records to the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that the Tribunal to proceed and decide the same in accordance with law. All ancillary proceedings pending for consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions, were also transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court directed the Tribunal to make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record.
7. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed an application being C.M. Application No.106571 of 2017 for recall of the order dated 13.9.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017. This Court rejected the said application vide order dated 23.7.2018.
8. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed review application being C.M. Application No.87412 of 2018 seeking review of the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 and, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.4.2019 rejected the said review application. The Division Bench held that the recall application was nothing but an attempt to review the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2018. It was said the second review application would not be maintainable and even otherwise, there was no merit in the review application.
9. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Contempt of Court Act, 1971 being C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 alleging that Vinod Kumar Verma, who had filed the affidavit in support of the special appeal as Director of the Academy, was never appointed as Director and he had filed a false affidavit with the special appeal. The applicant-petitioner has also filed several other applications.
10. Notice was issued on this application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Academy, in which it has been clearly indicated that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma had been appointed as Director of the Academy vide order dated 22.7.2009. Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit. An averment has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that tenure of Vinod Kumar Verma was completed on 31.3.2018 and, thereafter, Sri Nalin Tandon was appointed as Director of the Academy.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the counter affidavit filed in the present application, allegation levelled by the applicant-petitioner that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was not the Director of the Academy on the date of filing of the affidavit in the special appeal, is not correct. Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was appointed as Director vide order dated 22.7.2009 and his term got expired on 31.3.2018. Therefore, the affidavit filed by Sri Vinod Kumar Verma in support of the special appeal, can not be said to be a false affidavit.
12. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground to initiate the contempt proceedings against Sri Vinod Kumar Verma.
13. Application is wholly misconceived, which is hereby rejected. "
Order dated 28.01.2022 "Court No. - 8 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey,Anurag Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Raj Kumar Singh,S.B.Pandey,S.K. Yadav Warsi,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
(C.M.Application No.26 of 2022) Present application has been filed seeking clarification/modification of the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court.
This Court after considering the facts as come out from the pleadings, has passed detailed order.
The applicant, if feels aggrieved from the said order, he may take recourse to appropriate proceedings as may be available to him under the law.
This court is of the view that no clarification/modification is required in the order dated 25.11.2021 passed in application filed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017.
--------------------------------
Present application is hereby rejected.
12. It is also evident that the applicant also filed two miscellaneous applications i.e. Civil Misc. Application Nos.82666 of 2013 and 98691 of 2015 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003, those were rejected by the Court vide common order dated 03.07.2017.
13. The order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Application Nos.82666 of 2013 and 98691 of 2015 is reproduced as under:
"Court No. - 7Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2226 of 2003 Petitioner :- Sunder Lal Maurya Respondent :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi Fursatganj Counsel for Petitioner :- Inperson,Pt.D.R.Shukla,R.P.Shukla,S L Maurya(In Person) Counsel for Respondent :- B.B. Saxena,Deepak Seth,I.H. Farooqui,Mahendra Kumar Misra,N K Seth,Pratyush Tripathi,Virendra Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002, both filed by the petitioner, was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
In terms of the directions so issued, the application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been registered as Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 and is listed today before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter.
I have heard petitioner in person and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey for the respondents.
The application under section 340 Cr.P.C. proceeds on the grounds set out in para 2 to 5 of the affidavit, which are extracted hereinafter:-
"2. That it so happened that when the Hon'ble Court [presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma] after a brief hearing Sri R.P. Shukla Advocate the then learned counsel for the petitioner the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order, Mr. Deepak Seth Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties appeared and made statement as per instruction received:-
"Mr. Deepak Seth submits that Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi has been purchased by a Canadian Company and as such he may be allowed a weeks' time to file affidavit in this regard. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner to file objection, if any. List thereafter. It shall not be treated as tied up to this Bench."
3. That later on, it was revealed and now it is evident from the letter dated 2.8.2010 [Annexure No.SA-1] to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.4.2013 sent by Manager addressed to petitioner through registered post bearing letter No. IGRAU:HR:PF: 10:471 in para 18 reads as under:-
"18- अज्ञानवश अकादमी के अधिकृत अधिवक्ता श्री दीपक सेठ ने जो गलत बयान न्यायालय में दिया था उसके लिये उनको तत्काल प्रभाव से हटाकर श्री ओ०पी० श्रीवास्तव को उनकी जगह नियुक्त किया गया।"
4. That from the above spectrum of facts it emerges out that vicious deceit was played by opposite parties for lingering the matter in issue because after hearing at some length Sri R.P. Mishra the then learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order. The aforesaid interruption was deliberately made in order to mislead the Hon'ble High Court which calls for action willful and deliberate, false statement before Hon'ble High Court is a matter of serious concern. It is culpable and contemptuous.
5. That the result and effect of the aforesaid false statement was that the matter was adjourned and now it is crystal clear that Uran Academy was not purchased by the Canadian Company, such a misleading and false statement was uncalled for, unexpected and malingers the dignity of the Hon'ble High Court. On account of the aforesaid irresponsible and false statement the Hon'ble Court was interrupted from passing any order which has resulted into miscarriage into justice."
Petitioner submits that a false statement was made before this Court that the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy has been purchased by a Canadian company, and therefore, time was sought from the court on a false pretext. It is averred that for such reasons the respondents are liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C.
In the counter affidavit filed the respondents have brought on record an agreement entered into between CEA Aviation Training, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy on 7.2.2008. The first and last page of this agreement has been brought on record which shows entering into an agreement between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and CEA Aviation Training. Respondents have further stated as under in para 5 of the affidavit:-
"5. That it appears that in pursuance of the management contract with a Canadian Company namely CAE Aviation Training B.V., Canada dated 7.2.2008 the entire management including the powers to make changes in employee Service Rules and Regulations, change of Payscales, Conduct and Discipline was transferred to the aforesaid Canadian Company and thereby the Canadian Company become competent to deal all such matters and this information was given to the learned standing counsel to seek adjournment so that the complete facts may be brought on record before this Hon'ble Court. It further appears that while seeking adjournment to bring the aforesaid facts on record the facts were taken as purchasing by the Canadian Company under some confusion. There was no wrong information given by the counsel of the Akademi and there was no intention behind it. This statement did not infringe any legal right of the petitioner and the Akademi did not get any benefit out of it. A true copy of the agreement entered between the Academy and CAE Aviation Training B.V dated 7.2.2008 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.C-1 to this counter affidavit/objection."
It is stated that counsel was apprised of subsequent developments in the matter so as to bring such materials on record and that the statement made by the counsel that academy has been purchased although was not entirely correct as merely management has been taken over but for such reasons proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be initiated.
Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008 merely records statement of counsel so as to enable him file an affidavit bringing on record such facts. The records do reflect that an agreement was entered into between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and Canadian company for taking over management. Even if the factum disclosed before the court that the academy has been purchased is incorrect, yet, in my opinion it would not give rise to a cause to initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has merely made a statement so as to enable him to file an affidavit before the court in that regard. There is nothing on record to show that any false statement was made on affidavit before the court. It is possible that there may have been lack of communication and inadvertent omission with regard to taking over of management was construed as purchase of academy, but that seems unintentional in the facts and circumstances. Necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.
Application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 3.7.2017 Ashok Kr.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.98691 of 2015 Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002 both filed by the petitioner was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
Petitioner states that he was wrongly terminated and respondents have filed false affidavit before this Court. Various paragraph of the affidavit states that this Court had called for an affidavit from the respondents on the aspect as to whether post of administrative officer was sanctioned and whether appropriate delegation of power existed in favour of the authorities. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that since incorrect affidavits were filed and that respondent D.K. Mahesh was illegally promoted, all such affidavits filed by them in this petition are liable to be discarded from consideration in the matter.
Perusal of the record goes to show that grievance of the petitioner has been considered on merits and appropriate relief as was found desirable under the facts and circumstances has already been granted to the petitioner. The question as to whether deponent swearing the counter affidavit had been promoted legally or illegally was not the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is once examined on merits, I am not inclined to entertain this application or to proceed further under section 340 Cr.P.C.
Application is accordingly consigned to records. "
14. It also reveals from the record that one Application No.27 of 2020 was filed by the applicant in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) on 11.02.2022 for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017 passed in the said Special Appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.10.2023 with the observation that in pursuance of the order dated 13.09.2017, the case has already been registered at Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow as T.A. No.02 of 2018 and the same is still pending, therefore, it is expected from the Central Administrate Tribunal, Lucknow to decide the aforesaid TA preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of receipt of certified copy of the order, after affording the adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
15. Order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Application No.27 of 2020 filed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) is reproduced as under:
"Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:65873-DB Reserved On :- 06.10.2023 Delivered On :- 13.10.2023 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 10 of 2017 Appellant :- Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Sunder Lal Maurya And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Kumar Dubey,Anurag Srivastava,Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,In Person,Raj Kumar Singh,S.B.Pandey,S.K. Yadav Warsi,Sunder Lal Maurya In Pers Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J (Dictated by Justice Shree Prakash Singh) [Order on C.M. Application (IA) Nos. 27 of 2022, 36 of 2023 and 37 of 2023] Heard Sri Sunder Lal Maurya, the applicant/respondent who appears in person, Sri Anurag Srivastava and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent/appellants.
This is a chronic case which has been brought before us by way of instituting an application dated 04.02.2022, for recall of the final order dated 13.09.2017 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017.
Brief history of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed on 31.05.1991 in Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Academy (hereinafter referred as 'IGRUA') and was working as a tractor driver. On, 11.07.2001, he was issued chargesheet for disobedience of the orders of the authority of the Academy and the departmental enquiry proceeded and vide order dated 23.07.2002, removal order was passed and thereafter, the appellate authority had also upheld the punishment on 23.01.2003. Being aggrieved the applicant filed a writ petition, bearing number, Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003, against the order of removal dated 23.07.2002, wherein, vide judgement and order dated 23.12.2016, the writ petition was allowed. The operative portion of the order dated 23.12.2016 is quoted hereinunder:-
"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. "
Challenging aforesaid order, IGRUA filed an Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017, wherein, the order was passed on 13.09.2017, whereby, the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 was set-aside and the matter was transmitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The extract of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 is reproduced hereinunder:-
"Accordingly, we allow the appeal. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.12.2016 is hereby set aside. Both the writ petitions along with records be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, within two months from today whereupon the Tribunal will proceed to decide the same, in accordance to law.
All ancillary proceedings whatever may be pending consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions will also be transfered to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the writ petitions are of the year 2000 and 2003, we expect that the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records."
Again the applicant instituted a review application for revisit of the order dated 13.09.2017, which was dismissed on 24.04.2019. Thereafter, a modification application was also moved by the applicant for modification of the order dated 24.04.2019, passed in the review application and that too has been rejected on 24.07.2019.
Now the instant application has been moved for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, which is after lapse of five years.
At the very outset, counsel appearing for the IGRUA has raised preliminary objection, that since the order dated 13.09.2017, is the final judgement and order, in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 and therefore, miscellaneous application that is the application for recall, is not maintainable. He reitirated that the applicant moved review application of the order dated 13.09.2017, which was dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 24.04.2019 and modification application for modification of the order dated 24.04.2019 passed in review application was also rejected on 24.07.2019. Therefore, submission is that the application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017 may be rejected.
On the other hand, the applicant, namely, Sunder Lal Maurya, who appears in person submitted that the order dated 13.09.2017 has been passed ignoring the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court. He added that it is trite law that once a writ petition is admitted and is pending for long considerable period of time then the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and in the present matter, the writ petition was not only admitted, but the final judgement and order was passed and therefore, this Court should not have remitted back the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
He further argued that the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 and after 13 years, it was decided in year 2016, therefore if the matter of the applicant is again relegated back to the Central Administrative Tribunal but, no fruitful purpose would be sub-served and the applicant would be harassed for no fault on his part. Thus, submission is that the recall application may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the Writ Petition No. 2226 (SS) of 2003 (Sunder Lal Maurya versus Director Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udaan Akademi Fursatganj), was allowed on 23.12.2016 in favour of the applicant while quashing the impugned removal order and thereafter, the Special Appeal bearing number 10 of 2017 was filed by the IGRUA and the same was allowed and the matter has been remitted back before the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereafter, a review application was filed by the applicant, which was dismissed and further the modification application with prayer for modifying the order passed in review application, has also been dismissed.
When we examine the application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, moved by the applicant, it emerges that the same has been filed after the review petition and the modification application is dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while testing its maintainability. It is trite law that 'once the proceeding stands terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen the proceedings by means of miscellaneous application'.
In case of State of UP Vs Brahm Datt Sharma and another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179, it has been held by the Apex Court that no miscellaneous application could be entertained to revive proceeding in decided matters. The relevant portion, i.e., paragraph 10 of the abovesaid judgement is reproduced hereinunder:-
"The High Court's order is not. sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subse- quent events after two years. If the respondent was ag- grieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution chal- lenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous applica- tion in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. "
Admittedly, the instant recall application has been filed after the final judgement and order dated 13.09.2017 passed in Special Appeal No. 10 of 2017 and that too subsequent to the dismissal of the review application as well as the modification application and therefore the matter of the applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgement quoted as above.
In view of the aforesaid submission and discussion, we find no merit in this application, resultantly, the recall application is hereby rejected.
The applications for amendment in the recall application bearing CMA No. 36 of 2023 and CMA No. 37 of 2023 are misconceived, hence also rejected.
While departing from the aforesaid order, this Court has noticed the fact from the supplementary affidavit dated 06.10.2023 filed by the counsel for the IGRUA that after the matter was transmitted back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the case was registered as T.A. No. - 02 of 2018, which is still pending consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is expected from the applicant to appear and pursue his case before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In case, the applicant appears before the Central Administrative Tribunal and pursue his case, then it is expected that the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal shall expedite the proceedings by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and those proceedings may be concluded in expedition, preferably within a period of one year, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. "
16. The applicant has himself admitted in paragraph-6 of the present application that the record of the Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 (supra) has been transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow and he also appeared before the Tribunal.
17. This Court also finds that earlier, Contempt Application (Civil) No.1293 of 2021 was filed with the averment that the order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Civil Misc. Application Nos.82666 of 2013 and 98691 of 2015 is being flouted deliberately and the order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 (supra) is also not being complied with, knowing the fact that the said order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2017. After considering all these facts, the said contempt application was dismissed on 09.09.2022.
18. Order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.1293 of 2021 is reproduced as under:
"Court No. - 21 Reserved Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1293 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunderlal Maurya Opposite Party :- Pradeep Singh Khairola Secy. Aviation Safdarjang New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunderlal Maurya, applicant in person.
2. The present contempt petition is filed with the averments that the order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 is being disobedience wilfull and order of Writ Court dated 23.12.2016 is also not being complied with.
3. It is evident from the record that Writ Petition No.2226 (S/S) of 2003 was filed by the applicant, which was allowed on 23.12.2016, thereafter, Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 was preferred by Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi against judgement and order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 (S/S )of 2003 and the same was allowed by Division Bench of this Court on 13.09.2017 by setting aside the order of Writ Court, dated 23.12.2016 and matter was remanded to Central Administrative Trinubal as per the statutory remedy.
4. It is also evident from the record that Review Application No.87412 of 2018 was filed by the applicant in the aforesaid Special Appeal, which was also dismissed on 24.04.2019. It is also evident from the record that one application i.e. C.M. Appliation No.66107 of 32019, dated 23.05.2019 under Section 215 of Constitution of India was filed by the applicant in the aforesaid decided Special Appeal, which was dismissed on 25.11.2021. Order passed on application under Article 215 Constitution of India in the aforesaid Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 reads as under:-
" On Application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India
1. Heard Sri Sundar Lal Maurya, applicant in person and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties.
2. The applicant-petitioner is a chronic litigant before this Court.
3. The applicant-petitioner was appointed as Auto Helper in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy, Fursatganj, Raebareli ( for short ?the Academy?) on 31.5.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 11.6.1992 w.e.f. 10.6.1992. The applicant-petitioner was promoted vide order dated 2.9.1994 as Tractor Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The applicant-petitioner felt that similarly placed other Drivers were promoted to the post of Driver prior to him on completion of 3 or 4 years of service and, thereafter, they were further promoted to the post of Driver Group-B in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-, he filed Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 claiming promotion on the post of Driver and, thereafter, to the post of Driver Group-B. Vide interim order dated 18.10.2000, this Court directed that in case the work of Driver was being taken from the petitioner, he should be paid salary as Driver, subject to further orders. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which have been challenged by the applicant-petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003.
4. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 allowed Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003 and disposed of Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 and directed that if as a consequence of reinstatement of the petitioner he was entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, his case should be considered for the same in accordance with Rules.
5. The Academy filed Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 against the said judgement and order passed by the a coordinate Bench of this Court. Air Marshal, Vinod Kumar Verma of the Academy claimed to be posted as Director of the Academy, sworned the affidavit in support of the special appeal.
6. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 allowed the special appeal and set aside the judgement and order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Academy is mentioned in the notification dated 22.4.2008 issued under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear such matters, had been excluded and in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, once such a notification was issued on 22.4.2008 in respect of the Academy, the matter ought to have been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Division Bench transferred both the writ petitions along with records to the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that the Tribunal to proceed and decide the same in accordance with law. All ancillary proceedings pending for consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions, were also transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court directed the Tribunal to make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record.
7. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed an application being C.M. Application No.106571 of 2017 for recall of the order dated 13.9.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017. This Court rejected the said application vide order dated 23.7.2018.
8. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed review application being C.M. Application No.87412 of 2018 seeking review of the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 and, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.4.2019 rejected the said review application. The Division Bench held that the recall application was nothing but an attempt to review the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2018. It was said the second review application would not be maintainable and even otherwise, there was no merit in the review application.
9. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Contempt of Court Act, 1971 being C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 alleging that Vinod Kumar Verma, who had filed the affidavit in support of the special appeal as Director of the Academy, was never appointed as Director and he had filed a false affidavit with the special appeal. The applicant-petitioner has also filed several other applications.
10. Notice was issued on this application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Academy, in which it has been clearly indicated that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma had been appointed as Director of the Academy vide order dated 22.7.2009. Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit. An averment has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that tenure of Vinod Kumar Verma was completed on 31.3.2018 and, thereafter, Sri Nalin Tandon was appointed as Director of the Academy.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the counter affidavit filed in the present application, allegation levelled by the applicant-petitioner that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was not the Director of the Academy on the date of filing of the affidavit in the special appeal, is not correct. Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was appointed as Director vide order dated 22.7.2009 and his term got expired on 31.3.2018. Therefore, the affidavit filed by Sri Vinod Kumar Verma in support of the special appeal, can not be said to be a false affidavit.
12. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground to initiate the contempt proceedings against Sri Vinod Kumar Verma.
13. Application is wholly misconceived, which is hereby rejected."
5. It is evident from the Annexure-1 of the present contempt petition that two Misc. Applications i.e. Civil Misc. Application Nos.82666 of 2013 and 98691 of 2015 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were decided by rejecting the same, vide order dated 03.07.2017. The order dated 03.07.2017 has annexed as Annexure-1 with the contempt petition reads as under:-
"Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002, both filed by the petitioner, was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
In terms of the directions so issued, the application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been registered as Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 and is listed today before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter.
I have heard petitioner in person and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey for the respondents.
The application under section 340 Cr.P.C. proceeds on the grounds set out in para 2 to 5 of the affidavit, which are extracted hereinafter:-
"2. That it so happened that when the Hon'ble Court [presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma] after a brief hearing Sri R.P. Shukla Advocate the then learned counsel for the petitioner the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order, Mr. Deepak Seth Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties appeared and made statement as per instruction received:-
"Mr. Deepak Seth submits that Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi has been purchased by a Canadian Company and as such he may be allowed a weeks' time to file affidavit in this regard. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner to file objection, if any. List thereafter. It shall not be treated as tied up to this Bench."
3. That later on, it was revealed and now it is evident from the letter dated 2.8.2010 [Annexure No.SA-1] to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.4.2013 sent by Manager addressed to petitioner through registered post bearing letter No. IGRAU:HR:PF: 10:471 in para 18 reads as under:-
""18- अज्ञानवश अकादमी के अधिकृत अधिवक्ता श्री दीपक सेठ ने जो गलत बयान न्यायालय में दिया था उसके लिये उनको तत्काल प्रभाव से हटाकर श्री ओ०पी० श्रीवास्तव को उनकी जगह नियुक्त किया गया।" "
4. That from the above spectrum of facts it emerges out that vicious deceit was played by opposite parties for lingering the matter in issue because after hearing at some length Sri R.P. Mishra the then learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order. The aforesaid interruption was deliberately made in order to mislead the Hon'ble High Court which calls for action willful and deliberate, false statement before Hon'ble High Court is a matter of serious concern. It is culpable and contemptuous.
5. That the result and effect of the aforesaid false statement was that the matter was adjourned and now it is crystal clear that Uran Academy was not purchased by the Canadian Company, such a misleading and false statement was uncalled for, unexpected and malingers the dignity of the Hon'ble High Court. On account of the aforesaid irresponsible and false statement the Hon'ble Court was interrupted from passing any order which has resulted into miscarriage into justice."
Petitioner submits that a false statement was made before this Court that the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy has been purchased by a Canadian company, and therefore, time was sought from the court on a false pretext. It is averred that for such reasons the respondents are liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C.
In the counter affidavit filed the respondents have brought on record an agreement entered into between CEA Aviation Training, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy on 7.2.2008. The first and last page of this agreement has been brought on record which shows entering into an agreement between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and CEA Aviation Training. Respondents have further stated as under in para 5 of the affidavit:-
"5. That it appears that in pursuance of the management contract with a Canadian Company namely CAE Aviation Training B.V., Canada dated 7.2.2008 the entire management including the powers to make changes in employee Service Rules and Regulations, change of Payscales, Conduct and Discipline was transferred to the aforesaid Canadian Company and thereby the Canadian Company become competent to deal all such matters and this information was given to the learned standing counsel to seek adjournment so that the complete facts may be brought on record before this Hon'ble Court. It further appears that while seeking adjournment to bring the aforesaid facts on record the facts were taken as purchasing by the Canadian Company under some confusion. There was no wrong information given by the counsel of the Akademi and there was no intention behind it. This statement did not infringe any legal right of the petitioner and the Akademi did not get any benefit out of it. A true copy of the agreement entered between the Academy and CAE Aviation Training B.V dated 7.2.2008 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.C-1 to this counter affidavit/objection."
It is stated that counsel was apprised of subsequent developments in the matter so as to bring such materials on record and that the statement made by the counsel that academy has been purchased although was not entirely correct as merely management has been taken over but for such reasons proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be initiated.
Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008 merely records statement of counsel so as to enable him file an affidavit bringing on record such facts. The records do reflect that an agreement was entered into between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and Canadian company for taking over management. Even if the factum disclosed before the court that the academy has been purchased is incorrect, yet, in my opinion it would not give rise to a cause to initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has merely made a statement so as to enable him to file an affidavit before the court in that regard. There is nothing on record to show that any false statement was made on affidavit before the court. It is possible that there may have been lack of communication and inadvertent omission with regard to taking over of management was construed as purchase of academy, but that seems unintentional in the facts and circumstances. Necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.
Application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 3.7.2017 Ashok Kr.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.98691 of 2015 Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002 both filed by the petitioner was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.
Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
Petitioner states that he was wrongly terminated and respondents have filed false affidavit before this Court. Various paragraph of the affidavit states that this Court had called for an affidavit from the respondents on the aspect as to whether post of administrative officer was sanctioned and whether appropriate delegation of power existed in favour of the authorities. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that since incorrect affidavits were filed and that respondent D.K. Mahesh was illegally promoted, all such affidavits filed by them in this petition are liable to be discarded from consideration in the matter.
Perusal of the record goes to show that grievance of the petitioner has been considered on merits and appropriate relief as was found desirable under the facts and circumstances has already been granted to the petitioner. The question as to whether deponent swearing the counter affidavit had been promoted legally or illegally was not the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is once examined on merits, I am not inclined to entertain this application or to proceed further under section 340 Cr.P.C.
Application is accordingly consigned to records."
6. Considering the overall submissions of the applicant and going through the pleadings of contempt petition as well as record of Special Appeal No.10 of 2017, it is found that on 03.07.2017, two Misc. Applications i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013, Civl Misc. Application No.98691 of 2015, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Civil Misc. Application No.66107 of 2019, under Section 215 of Constitution of India were dismissed. It is also found that order of Writ Court has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid Special Appeal. Therefore, no contempt is made out.
7. Accordingly, the contempt petition is misconceived and dismissed. "
19. As it is evident from the order dated 25.11.2021 that the ground which is mentioned in the present contempt application has already been raised and rejected, in such circumstance, this Court finds that the applicant is habitual in filing repeated contempt applications as well as applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. As this Court observes that several contempt applications have been filed by the applicant at different stages and all the applications have been dismissed. This Court also observes that in the present case, there is no order which is being violated by the opposite party and the applicant is only trying to misuse the legal provisions by filing vague cases before this Court.
20. In view of the above, the present application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed with the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees).
22. The District Magistrate, Amethi is directed to ensure the recovery of cost from the applicant."
"Order dated 21.10.2024 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1629 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunder Lal Maurya Opposite Party :- Krishnendu Gupta, Mukhya Abhiyanta Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Academy Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
(C.M.A. No.3/2024)
1. Heard applicant in-person.
2. The instant application is filed with the prayer to recall the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the applicant vide order dated 23.4.2024.
3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for recall of fine imposed on the applicant is sufficient.
4. Application the application is allowed and amount of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the applicant is hereby, recalled.
5. It is also expected that T.A. No.2 of 2018, 'Sunder Lal Maurya Vs. Civil Aviation' pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow be decided expeditiously, if possible, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
6. Copy of this order be also transmitted to the District Magistrate, Amethi, forthwith."
5. Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt also informed that against the order dated 28.01.2025 passed in T.A. No.332/00002/2018 in relation to Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003, which has been finally disposed off, review application is filed by the applicant, which is pending. The order dated 28.01.2025 passed in T.A. No.332/00002/2018 is extracted as under :
"CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW TA No.332/00002/2018 IN WP No. 2226 of 2003 Dated, this 28th of January, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Sunder Lal Maurya son of Sri Ram Naresh Maurya, resident of Village - Rampur Jamalpur, Post-Poorey Vadey Singh, District - Rai Bareilly.
.... Applicant By Advocate : Shri Sunder Lal Maurya applicant in person VERSUS (1) Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, Airfield, District, Rai Bareilly.
(2) Chief Administrative Officer, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, Airfield, District-Rai Bareilly.
(3) Sri D.K. Mahesh, Chief Administrative Officer, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, Airfield, District-Rai Bareilly.
(4) Sri Ishwar Chandra Joshi, Ground Instructor/Enquiry Officer, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, Airfield, District-Rai Bareilly.
(5) Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, B-Block, Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi.
.... Respondents By Advocate : Shri Yogesh chandra Bhatt ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to removal from service, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
"a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2/3 and also to quash the impugned orders of punishment dated 23.7.2002 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and also the order dated 23.1.2003 passed in appeal by the opposite party No. 1, as contained in Annexure No. 15 & 21 respectively with the writ petition and the petitioner may be reinstated to his service with all the consequential benefits.
b) To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case.
c) To award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working on the post of Tractor Driver under the respondents, was issued a charge sheet dated 11.07.2001 by respondent no. 3. The applicant raised doubts about the validity of the post of Chief Administrative Officer and the authority of respondent no. 3 and refused to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted ex parte and found two of the three charges proved. A show cause notice dated 20.05.2002 was issued to the applicant to which he replied. Punishment of removal from service was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 23.07.2002. The applicant submitted appeal which was rejected vide order dated 23.01.2003. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this TA.
3.1 The applicant contends that he was not allowed to drive any other vehicle probably due to annoyance and prejudice on part of the respondents. He avers that when he approached Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 5782 (SS) of 2000, it further annoyed respondents 1 to 3 and as the applicant did not withdraw the WP, the charge sheet dated 11.07.2001 was issued to him in a mala fide manner.
3.2 The other contention of the applicant is that no post of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO, hereafter) exists in Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi (IGRUA, hereafter). Further, it is averred that the respondent no. 3 was promoted irregularly by respondent no. 1 with effect from 01.11.1994 to the non-existent post of CAO. The committee constituted for the purpose of examining pay fixation of IGRUA employees rejected pay scale proposed for respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 31.08.1994. Further, the said committee declared the post of CAO as not in order in its report. It is further averred that the Director, IGRUA has no authority to change the status and designation of any post. As such, the applicant refused to participate in the invalid enquiry and maintains that the impugned order of punishment was passed without authority or jurisdiction. The appellate authority dismissed the applicant's appeal without recording any finding.
4.1 In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, it is averred that neither he nor any respondent were ever annoyed with the applicant who has not provided no details whatsoever for such assertion.
4.2 The respondents state that the post of Chief Administrative Officer and Finance Officer (CAO & FO) was among 154 posts approved by the Expenditure Finance Committeeat the time of establishment of IGRUA in 1985. The post CAO & FO was created in the 10th emergent meeting of the Governing Council held on 16.01.1986. The Governing Council delegated its power under rule 12 of Rules and Regulations of the Society to the Director in 1987. Under paragraph 3 of the Instrument of Delegation, the Director is empowered to create all posts two level below his own post. Under paragraph 4 of the Instrument of Delegation, the Director may make temporary or permanent appointment/promotion for all posts two level below his own post. The hierarchy of posts in IGRUA is as follows: (i) Director; (ii) Chief Instructor; (iii) Chief Flying Instructor; (iv) Chief Engineer; (v) Chief Ground Instructor; (vi) Senior Simulator Instructor; (vii) Chief Finance Officer; (viii) Chief Administrative Officer. Thus, Director, IGRUA was fully competent to approve creation of post of CAO. The Governing Council, in its 15th meeting held on 06.04.1989, approved and regularized 216 existing posts, including the post of CAO in place of CAO & FO. The pay scale of the post was approved vide letter dated 08.02.1990. D K Mahesh (respondent no. 3) was initially appointed as Administrative Officer vide order dated 01.04.1987. He was promoted as CAO vide order dated 31.10.1994. The instrument of Delegation of Administrative Powers authorizes the Director to designate the category to which new designation belongs in case of change of designation or deletion. Accordingly, the Director authorized CAO by delegating the powers of departmental head. Thus CAO is the competent disciplinary authority to impose the punishment of removal from service on the applicant under the Conduct & Discipline Rules of IGRUA. The Director, as the appellate authority, upheld the punishment imposed by the competent authority.
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The first ground raised by the applicant is that of mala fide. We find that no specific instance has been cited by the applicant to support his claim other than the issue of charge sheet dated 11.07.2001. In the absence of any specific material on record to show mala fide action on part of the respondents, this ground is not sustainable. The validity of the charge sheet and the ensuing disciplinary action are discussed in the following sub-paragraphs.
6.2 The second ground taken by the applicant is that respondent no. 3 is not the competent authority to authorize the disciplinary proceeding and impose punishment as the post of CAO held by respondent no. 3 is non-existent. In support, the applicant has referred to letter dated 12.09.1986 titled 'Establishment of the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi (Central Flying School) at Fursatganj, Uttar Pradesh - Financial Assistance/Grants-in-Aid from Government' showing the post of Chief Administrative & Finance Officer. Another letter dated 31.08.1994 is cited in which the committee constituted for pay fixation of employees working at IGRUA rejected the proposal for re- fixation of pay in respect of D K Mahesh. The following extract of the committee's deliberations are relevant:
"It appears that originally, at the time of consideration of the project for setting up of the Akademi by Expenditure Finance Committee, the intention was to have a combined post to look after both the administration and finance functions at a sufficiently higher level, who could head the two disciplines independently. However the Committee noticed that the post is presently being operated as that of Chief Administrative Officer only, which is not in order. The Committee further examined the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that it may not be necessary to have separate posts of Chief Admin Officer and Chief Finance Officer. Having regard to all the relevant factors such as the size of the Akademi, nature of its functioning and number of employees etc., it would be sufficient to have one post of Chief Admin. and Finance Officer, who could be assisted by a Sr. Admin. Officer and a Sr. Accounts Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 3000 - 4500. This view has been taken into account and reflected in the Assessment of Manpower detailed at Annexure II."
(emphasis supplied) It is noted that the above is the opinion of the Committee from an administrative perspective. It has not been followed by any action to abolish or re-designate the post of CAO. It is also noted that the applicant has not placed any material on record to show annulment of promotion granted to respondent no. 3 to the post of CAO vide order dated 31.10.1994.
6.3 As far as the power of Director, IGRUA to create or designate post of CAO is concerned, we had the occasion to examine a similar issue recently in OA No. 376 of 2022 Shiv Kumar Yadav vs UOI &Ors in the context of the post of Manager-HR in IGRUA. Vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2024, we held as follows:
"7.7 It emerges from the above that delegation of powers is permissible in law, there is a specific provision in the rules and regulations of IGRUA permitting such delegation, the Director has delegated the power of disciplinary authority for Group 'C' & 'D' employees under Conduct and Discipline Rules of IGRUA to Manager-HR, and the Director is authorized to do so in case of change of designation or addition of new designation. In conclusion, we do not find any infirmity in the suspension order dated 02.09.2011 issued by Manager-HR."
(emphasis supplied) We find that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to Shiv Kumar Yadav (supra) and there is no reason to differ from the conclusion reached therein in regard to the powers of Director, IGRUA in the present case. In our opinion,the Director, IGRUA is empowered to create or re-designate the post of CAO in place of CAO & FO in terms of powers available under rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of IGRUA read with the Note below clause 1, and clauses 3 and 4 of the Instrument of Delegation.
6.4 Coming to the disciplinary proceedings, it is noted that in the enquiry four witnesses were examined and, the applicant having chosen not to participate in the enquiry proceedings, various letters written by him to administration were taken into consideration. The enquiry found that the charges of willful insubordination and breach of order pertaining to conduct and discipline were proved as the applicant did not perform the assigned job from 08.09.2000 to 15.07.2001 (about nine months) in spite of repeated reminders and as he disobeyed the orders of his superiors. The enquiry found the charge of willfully slowing down performance of work as not proved. In regard to ex parte enquiry, the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs Narendra Kumar Pandey AIR 2013 SC 904 are relevant:
"25. This Court in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82 held where a workman intentionally refuses to participate in the inquiry, cannot complain that the dismissal is against the principles of natural justice. Once the inquiry proceed ex parte, it is not necessary for the Inquiring Authority to again ask the charged officer to state his defence orally or in writing. We cannot appreciate the conduct of the charged officer in this case, who did not appear before the Inquiring Authority and offered any explanation to the charges levelled against him but approached the High Court stating that the principles of natural justice had been violated."
(emphasis supplied) A perusal of the disciplinary authority's order dated 23.07.2002 and the appellate authority's order dated 23.01.2003 shows that the impugned orders cannot be termed as cryptic or non-speaking or suffering from non application of mind. The appellate authority has considered the points raised by the applicant. Considering the nature of charges and the findings of the enquiry, it is also not a case of grossly disproportionate punishment, in our view.
7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, the applicant cannot be granted any relief. This TA is disposed of accordingly. 7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 On the request of the applicant, the registry is directed to have the Hindi translation of this judgment and order prepared and supplied to the applicant, in terms of rule-3 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
7.4 The Parties shall bear their own costs."
7. The submission of Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate appearing for Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi is that applicant is habitual in filing vague cases under Section 340 CrPC, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sections 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act either against Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi or its officials. The instant recall application has also been filed by the applicant to mislead the Court on frivolous ground, which is, nothing but abuse of legal provisions. It is, thus, submitted that the recall application is liable to be dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel appearing for Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Academy, Fursat Ganj, Amethi and going through the contents of present recall application as also the record of Special Appeal as well as orders quoted above, it is evident that the applicant is habitual in filing vague applications under Section 340 CrPC, under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The present application has also been filed without any cogent basis and has been moved only to misled the Court. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, recall of which has been sought by means of present application no.40 of 2025, this Court noticing the fact that the record had not been sent back to Central Administrative Tribunal, while listing the matter for 30.09.2024 directed the office to send bact the record to Central Administrative Tribunal. Further, this Court finding the Contempt Application No.1629 of 2024 misconceived, as no order was being violated by the authorities concerned and the applicant is trying to mislead the legal provisions by filing vague applications, dismissed the contempt application vide order dated 23.04.2024 with the cost of Rs. 1 lac. However, the cost imposed was withdrawn vide order dated 21.10.2024 considering the pity condition of the applicant. Evidently, again the instant recall application has been filed in gross abuse of the legal provisions.
9. In view of above facts and discussions, the present application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand). The applicant is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court within a period of two months from today.
11. In case, the aforesaid amount of cost is not deposited by the applicant within the period stipulated above, the District Magistrate, Amethi is directed to recover the aforesaid cost of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land revenue and transmit the same to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
12. Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to District Magistrate, Amethi for compliance.
(C.M. Application Nos. 41 of 2025) For the reasons mentioned above in C.M. Application No.40 of 2025, the instant application No.41 of 2025 is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025.
Rks.