Chhatrapal vs M.P.S.R.T.C. and Another

A.K. Mishra, J.

The petitioner filed the writ petition that he retired on 30.6.1987. His entire outstanding dues have not been paid to him. He served a legal notice Annexure P-1. Petitioner claimed interest 18% p.a. on the retrial dues. Writ petition was admitted on 25.7.01. Notice was issued. An application was filed on 4.1.2002 by the M.P.S.R.T.C. for dismissing the petition on the ground that entire retiral dues were paid to the petitioner by issuing cheques on different dates between the period from 1.10.87 to 18.7.89. Provident fund amount was also paid to him. Since a fire took place in the year 1989 in the Central Work Shop, taking the advantage petitioner had filed the writ petition feeling that record may have been destroyed on such fire, however in the establishment department, it was found that entire amount has been paid to him long back 12 years ago. Details of payment have been filed along with the application duly certified by the Accounts Officer, M.P.S.R.T.C. Central Officer Gwalior. It indicates that payment was already made to the petitioner way back in the year 1987-88 and nothing remained to be paid thereafter.

The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset appear today and prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition to which learned counsel for the respondent has raised serious objection and submits that the procedure of this court was misused by the petitioner as such he should not be allowed to go scot free one the jurisdiction was invoked. False affidavit was filed and by filing false affidavit an attempt was made to secure monitory benefit.

The petitioner does not want to pursue with the writ petition and wants to withdraw it. The fact remains which cannot be overlooked that petitioner had filed false affidavit before this court. Petitioner is unable to controvert the allegations made in the application and thus it is clear that retiral dues were paid to the petitioner way back in the year 1987-88 and still he invoked jurisdiction of this court by filing false affidavit. Petitioner has thus rendered himself liable for proceedings under Contempt of Court Act for misleading the court by filing false and fraudulent affidavit he has prima facie committed an offence punishable u/s 193 of Indian Penal Code.

In the circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. However contempt proceedings be registered against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this court and also why criminal proceedings should not be directed against him for filing false affidavit before this Court.

Petitioner is directed to be present before this court to file explanations as per the date as fixed by the office in Contempt Proceedings.