Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. R.R. Gautam vs Dr. P.P. Singh on 1 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH C.P. 98/2009 with O.A. 324/2009 New Delhi this the Ist day of April, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) Dr. R.R. Gautam, S/o Late Sh. Meva Lal, R/o E-82, MCD Officers Qtrs, Thomson Road, New Delhi-110092. Applicant. (Applicant in person ) Versus Dr. P.P. Singh, Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi-110060. Respondent. (By Advocate Shri Praveen Swarup ) O R D E R (ORAL)
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (j).
Dr. R.R. Gautam had argued in person in the above petition and had submitted that it may be possible to find that there was a contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent while dealing with his case and, therefore, appropriate action needs to be initiated. Mr.Praveen Swarup, counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that the application might have been filed on a misconception of facts and at no time, there was any conduct on the part of the respondent making him liable for contempt proceedings. We are inclined to accept the stand of the respondent.
2. The brief facts could be narrated hereinbelow.
3. O.A. filed by the applicant had been disposed of in limine. An order of transfer had been issued to the applicant on 12.01.2009 and, according to the applicant, when the Tribunal disposed of the application challenging the transfer on 10.02.2009, his interest had been sufficiently safeguarded as could be seen from CP-1 order. The direction was that representation of the applicant dated 28.01.2009 should be considered by the respondent and the applicant was to be advised of the decision taken and until such time the decision is communicated, status quo was required to be maintained.
4. The contention of the applicant was that he had not been relieved at any time and even after the order passed by the Tribunal, he had been permitted to work in the old station but thereafter, he had not been permitted to work and this constituted willful disobedience. It is noticed that after supplying a copy of the order of Tribunal, for the period from 17.02.2009 till 14.03.2009, the applicant had been working against the old post.
5. According to the respondent, the applicant had been relieved as early as on 13.01.2009 by Annexure `B, and the engagement from 17.02.2009 was on a mistake, and when the full factual details became available, the status quo on the date of the order required to be maintained. It is further submitted that on the basis of the directions in the O.A., Annexure `A order had been passed and the applicant is obliged to report at the Chest Clinic, Shahdra. The consequential steps as envisaged by the order have, therefore, been completely carried out.
6. The plea of the applicant is that he was on leave from 12.01.2009 onwards and was not formally relieved. This position is difficult to be accepted, as the order had been communicated to him and the proceedings also show that he had been relieved of his duties for the erstwhile place of employment. In fact, there has been misunderstanding by the applicant about the impact of the order of status quo. As well it is presumable that had the Tribunal been fully made aware of the greater details at the time of disposal of the OA, there would not have been any cause for confusion. Also we are not prepared to accept the version of the applicant that the order of the Tribunal was required to be accepted.
7. As we find that there is no Contempt of Court on behalf of the respondent, the application is closed. Notice stands discharged. Liberty, however, is given to the applicant to challenge the transfer order on grounds available to him.
8. If the applicant joins duty within three days from today, it should be considered that there is no break in service and he should be presumed to have availed the admissible joining time. Since he had worked from 17.02.2009 onwards upto 14.03.2009, and as present proceedings were pending, he will be entitled to full salary for the period from 17.02.2009 upto 03.04.2009. In respect of the rest of the past period, appropriate orders are to be passed for regularizing the absence, as rule permits. No other directions are called for. Parties to bear their own costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) `SRD