Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Jhantu Das vs Mr Amit Khare & Ors on 4 December, 2024
1 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
CPC. 350/00035/2021
MA. 350/00466/2024
(In O.A. 350/00749/2020)
DATE OF HEARING: 21.11.2024
DATE OF ORDER : 04.12.2024
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Jhantu Das,
Son of Sri Satish Das, aged about 47 years, working as Casual
Labour at DDK/Kolkata, residing at 18/13 Netaji Nagar, Moore
Avenue, Kolkata- 700092.
............. Petitioner
VS.
i) Amit Khare, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
ii) Dr. A. Suryaprakash, The Chairman, Prasar Bharti, Mandi
House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
iii) Mr. Mayank Agarwal, the Director General Doordarshan,
Mandi House, New Delhi- 110001.
iv) Lt. Col. Kalyan Das, the Deputy Director General
(Administration), Doordarshan, Mandi House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi- 110001.
v) Shashi S. Vempati, The Chief Executive Officer,
Broadcasting Corporation of India, Mandi House, Copernicus
Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997
0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc
LAL
533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020
vi) Mr. Sudip Chowdhury, Dy. Director (Engineer),
Doordarshan Kendra, Doordarshan Bhawan, 18/3, Uday Shankar
Sarani, Golf Green, Kolkata- 700095.
.........Alleged Contemnors
For The Applicant(s)/ Petitioner(s): Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Counsel
Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel
Mr. Argha Chakraborty, Counsel
For The Respondent(s)/ Alleged Contemnor(s): Mr. S. Paul, Counsel
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"(a) Office Order No. 19/30/2019-S.II (A)/277 dated 20.07.2020 issued by the Respondent no. 4 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same may be quashed.
(b) An order do issue directing the respondents to extend the benefit of regularization in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits in terms of Uma Devi judgment and regularization scheme of the respondents since he had already completed his service against sanctioned vacant post for more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 and without any orders of Hon'ble Courts/ Tribunals and particularly when the juniors and/or contemporary casual staffs had already been extended with such benefit of regularization in 2014 and 2015.
(c) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. Facts of the case relevant to the CPC are as follows :-
The applicant/petitioner was engaged as Casual Worker by DDK/ Kolkata. The respondents notified a Scheme for regularization of Casual Workers on 22.08.2019. The service of the petitioner was not regularized as Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 per this scheme. The applicant filed an OA against the rejection of his claim for regularization. The OA was heard on 30.09.2020 after which the Tribunal passed the following order :- (emphasis supplied) "Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.
The applicants claim that, by virtue of the Circular dated 5th Sept., 2019, Annexure A- 10 to the OA, which talks of a scheme for regularization or irregular appointments/ engagements, that they are eligible to be considered for regularization having served for more than 10 years. The respondents have denied regularization on the ground that, they have not completed 206 days in 2 consecutive years.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants possess supporting documents indicating completion of 206 days in 2 consecutive years, which the respondents have overlooked/ ignored while issuing speaking order. Since there is a factual dispute in regard to service under the respondent authorities, we direct the respondent authorities to constitute a Committee to examine the service particulars of the applicants to ascertain whether they have completed 206 days in two consecutive years and completed 10 years to be entitled for regularization in terms of circular dated 05th September, 2019. Let a report to that effect be produced by 4 weeks. Till such time, if the applicants are discharging their duties, they shall not be disengaged till the next date.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents vociferously objects to the protection granted to the applicants in regard to continuation since, according to him, the applicants serve as "no work no pay basis" and hence not entitled to regularization and the Department does not have enough funds to pay wages to the applicants. The applicants would submit they served continuously for ten years, hence, eligible for regularization.
Be that as it may, the applicants, if not discontinued, be not discontinued till next date. We would add that the Respondents for the purpose of verification shall accord a personal hearing to all the applicants with due notice.
List on 11.11.2020."
Service of the petitioner was not continued by the respondents after the abovequoted interim order. The petitioner filed the instant CPC alleging contempt of the Tribunal's interim order quoted above.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the OA on which the CP is based was disposed of by the Tribunal on 28.01.2022 with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicant. In pursuance of the Court's order dated 28.01.2022, the respondents issued a speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. This speaking order was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA before this Tribunal. This OA was dismissed by the Tribunal on 26.02.2024. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 submits that the fact remains that the alleged contemnors, by disengaging the service of the petitioner even after the clear orders of the Tribunal passed on 30.09.2020, have committed contempt of Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal had specifically directed that the service of the applicant, if not discontinued, be not discontinued till the next date.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order was passed on 30.09.2020 when the petitioner was still working. Therefore, his service ought to have been continued as per the above order of the Tribunal. Since this interim order continued till the disposal of the OA on 28.01.2022, the alleged contemnors should not have discontinued the service of the petitioner before that date. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged contemnors are duty bound to comply with all orders of the Tribunal including an interim order. It is of no relevance that the final decision of the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner at a later date.
4. On the other hand, respondents in the OA and the alleged contemnors in the CPC have filed an MA praying for dropping of the CPC in view of the eventual dismissal of the OA challenging the rejection of the applicant's claim to regularization on merit by the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors/respondents, Mr. S. Paul submits that the order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2020 was actually issued on 21.10.2020 and was received by the respondents after that date. The respondents, as per the order dated 18.08.2018, had already discontinued the service of the applicant on 30.09.2020 and the applicant was not in service when the order of the Tribunal was received by them. The said order had specifically stated that the applicant's service was to be continued if not already discontinued. Since the service of the applicant was already Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 discontinued when the said order of the Tribunal was issued, the question of continuing the service of the applicant does not arise. Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors/ respondents therefore submits that there has been no violation of the order of the Tribunal by the respondents.
5. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
5.1 Following two issues are framed for adjudication :-
(i) Whether contempt lies for violation of an interim order particularly if the final order of the Tribunal is in favour of the alleged contemnors/respondents.
(ii) Whether there has been a violation of the Tribunal's order dated 30.09.2020 by the alleged contemnors/ respondents.
5.2 It is settled law that the parties in a case are bound by all orders, whether interim or final, of the jurisdictional Courts unless such an order is set aside by a higher forum. It is not upto the parties to not comply with an interim order in the hope that the final order will be in their favour. It is therefore held that both parties in a litigation are bound by an interim order of the Tribunal irrespective of the final order in the case.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 observed that, "in a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take that as a ground for disobedience of any interim order passed by the Court".
5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the order was passed in the open Court on 30.09.2020 in the presence of the parties' lawyers. Even if the Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 written order was issued later, the respondents who were represented by their lawyer in the Court should have complied with the order without waiting for the written order. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors/respondents specifically states that though he was present in the Court on behalf of the respondents on 30.09.2020, he was not aware of the order till it was issued in writing later. As per the Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors/respondents, since funds were not available for continuance of the services of Casual Labour for the period after 30.09.2020, the applicant's services were terminated on that date.
5.4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ applicant cites the following judgments in support of his argument :-
(i) The Aligarh Municipal Boards and others vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoors Union and others reported in 1970 (3) SCC 98 ,
(ii) Chandrasekhar and Another vs. Ram Das reported in (2003) 2 Bom CR 132 ,
(iii) D.M. Samyulla vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore reported in 1991 KLJ 352.
Learned Counsel for the alleged contemnors/ respondents cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) 202 of 2000 in Mrityunjoy Das and Ors. vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors.
In the judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner/applicant, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts are :-
(i) In The Aligarh Municipal Boards and others (surpa), it has been Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 observed that, "in order to justify action for contempt of Court for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been officially served on the party against whom it is granted if it is proved that he had notice of the Order aliunde and he knew that it was intended to be enforced. Official communication is not a condition precedent, provided there is no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the Order conveyed".
(ii) In Chandrasekhar and Another(supra), it has been held that, "once the respondent had entered appearance before the Court on the aforesaid date through an Advocate the respondent must be imputed knowledge of the proceeding before that Court".
(iii) In D.M. Samyulla(supra) , it is held that, "the principle laid down in the said decision is, a party who knows an order, whether it is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it and it would be dangerous to allow the party to decide as to whether an Order was null or valid or whether it was regular or irregular".
5.5 It is not disputed that the applicant was engaged upto 30.09.2020.
Therefore, in terms of the order dated 30.09.2020, his service should not have been discontinued. It is, however, unfortunate that a factual matter with regard to Court proceedings on 30.09.2020 is in dispute. It is the duty of the Counsel to convey to his clients, in this case the respondents in the OA, orders of the Courts whether oral or written. However, in view of the unambiguous submission of the Learned counsel for the alleged contemnors/respondents, who also happened to be respondents' Advocate in the OA and was admittedly present in the Court on 30.09.2020, to the effect that he was not aware of the order of the Court till it was issued in writing on 21.10.2020, it can be safely Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 assumed that the respondent authorities were not informed of the order on 30.09.2020.
5.6 In Contempt Petition (Civil) 202 of 2000 in Mrityunjoy Das and Ors.
vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors. the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows :-
"13. Before however, proceeding with the matter any further, be it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of tantamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed, would even permeate in our society (vide Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & anr. :
MANU/SC/0042/2000 : 2000 CriLJ1394) - this is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law. It is in this context that the observations of this Court in Murray's case (supra) in which one of us (Banerjee, J.) was party needs to be noticed. "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by Courts of Law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the people for what the judiciary is undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged by the people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which even can remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to lose confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in general."
14. The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof', be it noted that a proceeding under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
The observations of Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale 1969 2 AII ER 1062 lend support to the aforesaid. Lord Denning in RE Bramblevale stated :
"A contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time- honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence.........Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt."Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020
15. In this context, the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Archana Guha vs. Ranjit Guha Neogi 1989 (II) CHN 252 in which one of us was a party (Banerjee, J.) seem to be rather opposite and we do lend credence to the same and thus record our concurrence therewith.
16. In The Aligarh Municipal Board and Others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and Others MANU/SC/0075/1970 : 1970CriLJ1520, this Court in no uncertain terms stated that in order to bring home a charge of contempt of court for disobeying orders of Courts, those who assert that the alleged contemnors had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. This Court went on to observe that in case of doubt, the benefit ought to go to the person charged.
17. In a similar vein in V.G. Nigam and others V. Kedar Nath Gupta and another MANU/SC/0419/1992 : 1992CRILJ3576, this Court stated that it would be rather hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities."
Given the circumstances and the submissions of the opposing Counsels, in our opinion, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged contemnors had knowledge of the order of the Tribunal on 30.09.2020 when the applicant was still in service. Even the applicant has not contended that any effort was made on his behalf to convey the order of the Tribunal to the respondents on the 30th of September, 2020, even when he knew that his service was liable to be terminated from the next date. Therefore, in terms of the ratio laid down in para 16 above, in our considered opinion, the charge of contempt of Court against the alleged contemnors for violation of the Tribunal's interim order cannot be sustained as it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had knowledge of the interim order on 30.09.2020. On the day the order came into public domain on 21.10.2020, the service of the applicant had already been discontinued. Therefore, the respondents cannot be held responsible for not continuing with the service of the applicant in terms of the order which stated that if not disengaged, the service of the applicant was to be continued. Since the applicant was already disengaged when the order came in the public domain, the respondents did not violate the order by not continuing with the service of the applicant. For the same reason, we also do not find merit in the applicant's contention that Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 CP 35/2021 IN OA 749/2020 the alleged contemnors could have reinstated the applicant after they became aware of the Court's order.
5.7 In view of the discussion above, it is held that there was no violation of the interim order of the Tribunal by the alleged contemnors.
6. In view of the above, CP stands dropped. Notices are discharged.
MA no. 466/2024 stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sl
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f997 0cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456adc LAL 533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.06 13:38:56+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0