Karnataka High Court
C Ramesh vs Shri Rajendar Sharma on 15 June, 2022
Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
C.C.C NO. 504 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
C. RAMESH
S/O SRI A. CHELLADURAI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO. D-3,
VASANTHAN NAGAR,
PILLAYAR KOIL STREET,
NEAR LIC ZONAL OFFICER,
PRITIVIAKKAN AMBATTUR,
CHENNAI - 600 053.
PRESENTLY ADDRESS
R/AT NO.101, MARS RESIDENCY,
SECOND FLOOR,
PATEL MARAPPA LAYOUT,
ELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
NR. GANESHA TEMPLE,
S.G. PALYA,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 093.
... COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI RAJESH K.S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. SHRI RAJENDAR SHARMA
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
OVERHAUL DIVISION.
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED,
BENGALURU COMPLEX,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
2. SRI AMITABH BHATT,
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED,
BANGALORE COMPLEX,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 017.
... ACCUSED
---
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
ACCUSED FOR HAVING NOT OBEYED, IMPLEMENTED AND
COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A. NO.385/2021 (S-DIS)
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
This contempt petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2021 passed in W.A.No.385/2021 whereby, while disposing of the appeal, the Court has provided as under:-
"6. In light of the aforesaid case, though it was permissible for the learned Single Judge to substitute the punishment, however, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty of dismissal (which was moderated to that of removal in appeal). This Court is also of the view that the punishment of dismissal and the subsequent order of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the Government servant and therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority as directed by the learned Single Judge to pass any other order of punishment other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. The employee in question is out of job. He needs financial assistance for his treatment and therefore, he deserves to be reinstated forthwith enabling him to survive and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority should certainly be free to pass an appropriate order within a period of 60 days in respect of the quantum of punishment. The reinstatement be done forthwith and two months time is granted to pass a fresh order. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.12.2016 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.07.2017 of dismissal and removal respectively are hereby quashed. The Disciplinary Authority shall also pass an appropriate order in the matter of grant of backwages and for regularizing the period of leave in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application stands disposed of."-4-
2. Learned counsel for the complainant tries to submit that the accused has deliberately not paid the back wages and has not taken any decision for regularizing the period of leave.
3. We have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
4. Annexure - E to the contempt petition is the letter dated 25.09.2021 wherein, the General Manager (O) and Disciplinary Authority has taken the decision with regard to compliance of the Court's order and the punishment of removal has been revised to reduction of basic pay by 15 stages in the same pay scale with cumulative effect. 103 days' of absence has been treated as unauthorized absence from duty and as such, considered as dies non period. The order further says that the complainant would not be entitled to get salary/back wages for the period he was not on duty.
5. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no willful disobedience or non-compliance of the order passed in the writ appeal. In case the complainant is -5- aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2021, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
6. The contempt petition in the given facts is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE KPS