AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Amrendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
The instant contempt petition vide no. 143 of 2019 has been filed alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 31.05.2019 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 1024 of 2017 thereby restraining the respondents from deducting / recovering the amount from the salary of the applicant. For the sake of clarity, the operation portion of the order dated 31.05.2019 is reproduced herein below:
“However, counsel for the applicant submits that respondents are deducting amount from his salary in violation of rules and principle of natural justice. He prays that the recovery be stayed otherwise, the OA will become infructuous.
In these circumstances, the respondents are factually restrained from deduction / recovery of amount from salary of the applicant till the next date of hearing.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that despite a clear instruction from the Tribunal given vide order dated 31.05.2019, the respondents have illegally deducted the amount from the salary of the petitioners. Learned counsel further argued that the aforesaid order was passed by the Tribunal in reference to the order passed by the Bangalore Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 93 of 2014 which stands settled even up to the level of the Apex Court and attained finality. Thus, pressing for the case of the petitioner, learned counsel argued that in spite of an explicit order debarring the respondents from deducting any recovery from applicant’s salary, respondents flouted it and went ahead to enforce the recovery on a regular basis due to which the applicant has been suffering both mentally and financially. As such, prayer is made to punish the respondents for the willful disobedience made at their end.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there has been no disobedience of the Tribunal’s order at their end and the submissions of the petitioners’ counsel are false and uncalled for. Learned counsel argued that when the case was listed on 31.05.2019, it was listed before Single Bench although it is cognizable by Division Bench. This happened due to non-availability of Division Bench. Further, on that day, the counsel for the respondents had filed illness and was not present due to ill health. Despite the absence of respondents’ counsel, the Tribunal went ahead to pass the interim order thereby directing the respondents to refrain from making any recovery from the salary of the petitioners. Later, when the subject OA came up for hearing on 19.07.2019, the Tribunal passed an order directing the petitioners’ counsel to not move the contempt petition in view of his own undertaking. However, flouting the said order, the petitioners’ counsel filed the contempt petition. Thus, respondents’ counsel argued that the present contempt petition is uncalled for and is liable to closed accordingly.
We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on records.
As the brief facts of the case have already been discussed above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. A perusal of the record reveals that initially Stay order in the subject original application was passed on 31.05.2019 (as quoted in the second paragraph) refraining the respondents from deducting / recovering the amount from the salary of the applicant till the next date of hearing which was 05.07.2019. On 05.07.2019, interim protection granted on 31.05.2019 was extended till 16.07.2019. On 16.07.2019 also, interim protection granted on 31.05.2019 was extended till 18.07.2019. On 18.07.2019, the interim protection was not extended and the next date 19.07.2019 was fixed. On 19.07.2019, following order was passed:
“Shri Shariq Shamim, counsel for the applicants and Shri P.K. Pandey, counsel for the respondents, are present. Learned counsel for the applicants states that arguing counsel is ill today and therefore, he seeks adjournment. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this adjournment. He states that yesterday also i.e. on 18.07.2019, the case was adjourned at the request of applicants’ counsel. He also states that earlier on 31.05.2019, there was illness slip of counsel for the respondents and interim relief was prayed for and obtained by the learned counsel for the applicants. As such, he states that there is no justification for granting the interim order. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that due to pendency of this OA the employees are taking advantage and discipline in the office is affected. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the applicant’s side should be restrained from moving contempt petition as the proceedings of the case are getting delay due to the adjournment being sought by applicant’s counsel. Learned counsel for the applicants agrees with the submission of the respondents’ counsel. List on 30.07.2019. Meanwhile, the applicants on his counsel will not move the contempt petition in view of the position indicated above.”
Therefore, the above order makes it abundantly clear that the applicants were restrained from moving contempt petition till the next date i.e., 30.07.2019 on the basis of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicants. It was extended on 30.07.2019, 26.08.2019 and 10.10.2019. A perusal of the CP reveals that it was filed on 02.09.2019. Since the interim prohibition granted in the order dated 19.07.2019 was operative on the day when the CP was filed, thus, submissions raised on behalf of the respondents are acceptable. Although notices were issued in this matter, mere issuance of notices will not be sufficient to continue with the proceedings of the contempt petition. Thus, we are of the considered view that proceedings of the contempt petition are liable to be closed and notices are liable to be discharged for the reasons discussed hereinabove.
Accordingly, the proceedings of the instant contempt petitions are closed and notices are discharged. All associated MAs stand disposed of.
List the OA on 05.08.2024.