Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikas Sahu vs R.K. Chaturvedi on 4 December, 2019
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
HI GH CO URT O F M ADHYA PR ADES H:J ABA LPU R
WP No.11983/2019
(Vikas Sahu Vs. Union of India & others)
CONC No.2545/2019
(Vikas Sahu Vs. R.K.Chaturvedi & another)
WP No.11984/2019
(Gaurav Soni Vs. Union of India & others)
CONC No.2544/2019
(Gaurav Soni Vs. R.K.Chaturvedi & another)
WP No.11990/2019
(Amarchand Meena Vs. Union of India & others)
CONC No.2543/2019
( Amarchand Meena Vs. R.K.Chaturvedi & another)
WP No.11994/2019
(Amit Kumar Shrivas Vs. Union of India & others)
Dated: 04.12.2019
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri M.P.Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondents No.2 and 3.
Heard on IA Nos.14571/19, 14568/19, 14569/19 and 14570/19, which are the applications for taking documents on record.
Applications are allowed and the documents be taken on record.
Also heard on the question of interim relief. In the present case initially by way of interim measure it was directed that the charge sheet so issued against the petitioners which is under 2 challenge shall not come in the way of promotion of the petitioners but the same shall be subject to the final disposal of the petition. Thereafter, the respondents in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), did not find the petitioners eligible for promotion, however, still applications IA No.10963/19, IA No.10965/19 & IA No.10967/19 were filed in the respective petitions on their behalf for recalling/vacating the interim order.
The aforesaid applications were opposed by the petitioners on the ground that since the petitioners were not found fit for promotion in the DPC, hence the order itself has been rendered otiose. In view of the same, the applications for vacating the interim order were dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that recently the petitioners came to know that the reason for non-consideration of their names in the DPC was not on account of their merit but on account of the impugned charge sheet/ departmental enquiry, which is pending against the petitioners and as such despite having interim order in their favour, which was passed by this Court on 13.8.2019, the petitioners' names were not considered, which is in clear violation of the interim order passed by this Court and therefore CONC No.2545/2019, CONC No.2544/2019 and CONC No. 2543/2019 have also been filed in which notices have also been issued.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have prima 3 facie case so far as the merits of the case are concerned and only to bypass the interim order passed by this Court, the applications for recalling the interim order were filed by the respondents. Thus it is submitted that further proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet be stayed, as it is clear mala-fide on the part of the respondents who are bent upon to conclude the departmental enquiry in a haphazard manner. It is further submitted that since the respondents have flouted the order passed by this Court, before hearing them on merits, it should be seen if they have violated the order. In support of his contention Shri Gulati has also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 to submit that if an interim or final order is passed by the competent Court and the same is disobeyed by the party, the Court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits.
On the other hand, Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the writ petitions itself are not maintainable hence there is no question of interim relief being granted to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not filed any separate application for interim relief and their prayer for interim relief in the body of the petition is is already exhausted when the earlier interim order was passed by this Court on 14.10.2019.
4Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as the question of violation of order dated 14.10.2019 passed by this Court is concerned, CONC Case No.2545/2019 has been filed by the petitioner and when Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents was asked to take the notice of the same as he is already representing the same party, he emphatically refused to accept the notice and has submitted that notice be issued to the respondents and he cannot appear on their behalf in the contempt petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd.(supra) has held as under:
"24. An order passed by a competent court- interim or final- has to be obeyed without any reservation. If such order is disobeyed or not complied with, the Court may refuse the party violating such order to hear him on merits. We are not unmindful of the situation that refusal to hear a party to the proceeding on merits is a "drastic step" and such a serious penalty should not be imposed on him except in grave and extraordinary situations, but some time such an action is needed in the larger interest of justice when a party obtaining interim relief intentionally and deliberately flouts such order by not abiding by the terms and conditions on which a relief is granted by the court in his favour."
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as also the conduct of the respondents in not instructing their present counsel to appear on their behalf in the contempt petitions, it 5 appears that the grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioners has some substance that the respondents have deliberately flouted the order passed by this Court in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion and that is probably why they had also filed the applications for recalling the interim order despite holding that the petitioners are not entitled for promotion.
In view of the same, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are not merited and are hereby rejected. It is further directed that till the reply is filed in the accompanying contempt petitions by the respondents, further proceeding pursuant to issuance of the charge sheet shall remain stayed.
List the case after four weeks.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Digitally signed by MANJOOR AHMED Date: 2019.12.12 11:03:05 +05'30' Judge Ansari