Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
R K Srivastava vs Satish Kumar, Gm, N.C.R.,G.M.Office ... on 17 December, 2024
RESERVED ON 11.12.2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 17th day of DECEMBER 2024.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII, MEMBER - J
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER -A
Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 330/00007/2023
In
Misc. Execution Application No. 03 of 2017
In
Original Application No. 161 of 2007
1. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava S/o Shri R.K. Srivastava, R/o
741/Y-1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur.
2. Shyam Narain Tripathi, S/o Late P.N. Tripathi, R/o
Krishna Vihar Sulemsarai, Allahabad.
3. Hemand Kumar Shukla S/o Sri Satya Narain Shukla, R/o
Q.402B, Rail Gaon (NCR Railway Colony), Subedarganj,
Prayagraj (Allahabad.
.........Petitioners
By Advocate: Shri A.K. Dave
Versus
1. Satish Kumar, General Manager, North Central Railway,
GM's Office, Subedarganj, Prayagraj (Allahabad).
2. Upendra Chandra Joshi, General Manager, North Central
Railway, H.Q Prayagraj (Allahabad).
..........Respondents
By Advocate: Shri M.K Sharma
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII, MEMBER - J We have heard Shri A.K. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the entire record.
2. Perusal of record reveals that initially OA No. 161 of 2007 MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA was filed by the petitioners/original applicants against the Union of India and others before the Tribunal. The same was disposed of on 17.04.2009 directing the competent authority to decide the Page 2 of 5 representation moved by the applicants, order passed in the OA was challenged through the Writ Petition No. 38801/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court. Writ Petition was decided on dated 15.07.2009. Again the original applicants moved review application against the judgment and order passed in the writ petition but it was rejected on 12.10.2012. Applicant approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through SLP No. 5338-5339 of 2013 which were converted into the Civil Appeal and were disposed of on 01.11.2013 allowing it and setting aside the order passed by Hon'ble High Court as well as this Tribunal and matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to take afresh decision. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the OA was decided on 11.09.2015 with the direction to the respondents to declare the result of the examination. No any observation on merit was expressed regarding eligibility list prepared by the respondents. Respondents filed Review Application, which was also rejected on 01.12.2017. Order passed in the OA was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is still pending. During the pendency of the writ petition, one execution application No. 3 of 2017 was filed before the Tribunal for execution of the order dated 11.9.2015. Execution Application was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2022 with the observation that direction given in the OA has now been complied with and result has been declared. Order passed in the execution application was challenged by the respondents through writ petition No. 5016 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is still pending. It further appears that present contempt petition has been filed against the order passed in the execution application No. 03/2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that direction MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA given in the execution application has not been complied with.
Copy of the result has not been supplied to them nor petitioners were given appointment. To substantiate his argument, learned Page 3 of 5 counsel for the petitioners referred to the order dated 18.01.2022 passed in the execution application wherein it was observed that order stands executed and thus execution application stand disposed of. It was also observed that it is expected that in accordance with the spirit of law the respondents will take necessary consequential action on the basis of declaration of the result in which the applicants have been successful within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Since direction given in the execution application has not been complied with, thus, argued to summon the competent authority for framing the charges.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that execution proceeding was closed and the direction given in the OA have been complied with. Result has been declared although copy of the result had been placed before the Tribunal when it was demanded but in case Court directs to supply the copy of the result, the same shall be supplied to the petitioners. It was also argued that direction contained in the execution application after disposing of the same is not part of the original order passed in the OA, thus, contempt petition is not maintainable. It was also argued that Court dealing with the contempt petition cannot go beyond the order against which contempt petition has been filed.
5. We have considered the rival submission and have gone through the entire record.
6. It is settled principle of law that Court dealing with the contempt petition cannot travel beyond the order against which contempt petition has been moved. In this matter execution application has been closed on the ground of full compliance.
MANISH KUMAR Further observation was recorded in the order dated 18.01.2022 SRIVASTAVA to take necessary consequential action on the basis of declaration of result within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
Page 4 of 5This portion of the order has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the writ petition is still pending.
7. We have also perused the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and another Vs. P. Ravi Kumar and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3310 of 1997 along with connected Civil Appeals on 10.12.2024. Para 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12 are as under:-
"1.10 In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.
1.11 The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva Vs. George Ravishekeran1 this Court has observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged.
1.12 The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the "wilful disobedience".
Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched"
8. When para No. 7 of the order dated 18.01.2022 passed in the execution application wherein expectation was made by the Tribunal from the Competent Authority to take the necessary consequential action and the same is not part of the original order passed in the OA and it has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court through writ petition, thus, it would be just and proper to wait the result of the writ petition pending before MANISH KUMAR the Hon'ble High Court filed against the judgment and order SRIVASTAVA dated 18.01.2022 passed in the execution application No. 3 of 2017.Page 5 of 5
9. In view of the above, list this case on 16.04.2025.
10. Learned counsel for the parties are hereby directed to apprise the Tribunal about the outcome of the writ petition (Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2022 - Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Kumar Srivastava and others) pending before the Hon'ble High Court as has been disclosed in para 13 of the counter affidavit dated 11.07.2023.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash -VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA