Ashrafi Rai vs The Union of India and two Others

Uday Sinha, J.—By this application under Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed;

(i) to punish the respondents as being in contempt of the judgment of this Court contained in C. W. J. C. No. 2504 of 1976 disposed of on 25.11.1978 (Annexure-6), and

(ii) for quashing Annexure-1 by which disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

The history of the case is important to resolve the points involved in this case.

The petitioner was engaged as khalasi in North Eastern Railway for construction as casual labour. Shortly before he could complete one year of service he was discharged orally from service with effect from 17.3.1976. The petitioner challenged his discharge in C.W.J.C. No. 2504 of 1976 disposed of on 24.1 J. 1978 (reported in 1979 BRLJ 9). The ground for his discharge was that he had procured his engagement on a forged letter of appointment. The matter came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court of which Uday Sinha, J. was also a member. this Court was called upon to decide whether the petitioner had obtained his engagement by forged letter or not and this Court found that the assertion of the Railways in that regard was not true. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the Bench hearing the earlier writ application held an follows:

It is not in dispute that the petitioner were working as casual labour during the periods alleged by them. The assertion of the respondent that the petitioners had got themselves employed on forged appointment letters does not appear to be convincing."

After recording the above finding, this Court gave an additional ground for allowing the application. That was that the termination was illegal, as no inquiry had been held by the Railway authorities into the genuineness of the letters of appointment. After the application had beep allowed the petitioner was re-instated on 19.8.1979. After reinstatement the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 16.1.1980 to show cause why major punishment he not imposed upon him. The subject matter of the charge was that he had secured his appointment through forged letter. The charge sheet is Annexure-1 to this application. The service of charge sheet led the petitioner to file application for contempt of court in February, 1980 which was numbered at M. J. C. 107 of 1980. In that contempt proceeding the Railways stated that all arrears of salary of the petitioner had been paid. On that basis the rule in the contempt matter was discharged by order dated 13 8.1984. No order was passed in regard to the departmental enquiry initiated in January, 1980. A departmental proceeding against the petitioner was taken up in July, 1986, by appointing a conducting officer. The petitioner then filed C. W.J. C. No. 3886 of 1986 in which prayer was made to quash the departmental proceeding. That application was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 1.9.1986 in order to enable him to file an M. J. C. application for contempt of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court by the present application for punishing the respondents in contempt.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-I. It has been submitted that this Court had given a categorical finding that the story of obtaining employment by forged letter of appointment had no basis and therefore, any departmental proceeding would be in contempt of the finding of this Court. The submission is well founded. There can be no dispute over the fact that this Court had conclusively rejected the stand of the Railways that the petitioner had obtained his employment on forge d orders. That matter had been put in issue by the Railways themselves in order to non-suit the petitioner. The Court, therefore, had to record a finding in that behalf Having invited a finding, the Railways cannot now contend that that was not a conclusive finding. In my view, therefore, the Railways cannot be allowed to enquire into that matter once again. Annexure-I must, therefore, be quashed. This, however; does not preclude the Railways from initiating any fresh disciplinary proceeding for any other delinquency or failure by the petitioner. It will be open to them to do so.

The next question is whether the responding have acted in contempt of this Court in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am definitely of the view that no contempt was committed by any of the Railway officers. The tenor of the judgment to which I was a party does leave room for the impression that this Court wanted a full-fledged enquiry. The termination of the petitioner''s services had been quashed on the ground of contravening the rules of natural justice also. In that view of the matter, the officers of the Railways may well have been under impression that the Railways had been left free to initiate departmental proceeding. in that view of the matter, I am unable to hold that the respondents are guilty of contempt of this Court by initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner by Annexure-I. The rule in the contempt matter is thus discharged. In the result, Annexure-I is hereby quashed. The Railway authorities are restrained from holding any enquiry into the question of obtaining appointment by the petitioner by a forged letter. The rule for contempt. however, is discharged, In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

B.N. Agrawal J.

I agree.