AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J
The applicant has filed the instant Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of interim order of this Tribunal dated 30.5.2024 passed in O.A. No. 600 of 2024 in re. Dr. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Income Tax Department & Others. The relevant part of the interim order reads as under:-
“…….Thus, taking into account the facts of this case, in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh (supra)(with which the case of the applicant is squarely covered), a case is made out in favour of the applicant for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is granted and the effect and operation of the charge memo dated 11.10.2023 is hereby stayed till the next date of listing.”
Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant is that though the interim order, referred to above, as passed by this Tribunal has been served upon the respondents by the applicant through representation dated 21.6.2024, which has been sent by Speed post followed by reminder dated 28.6.2024, but the respondents did not give vigilance clearance despite lapse of considerable period of time and ultimately the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2024 and as such the respondents have violated the interim order dated 30.5.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A.
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and are of the view that no case for contempt is made out simply on the ground that the direction of the Tribunal was to stay the operation and implementation of charge memo dated 11.10.2023 till the next date of listing and there is no connection with regard to grant of vigilance clearance to be given to the applicant. Both are different thing. Further, we may state that stay of operation and implementation of charge memo would mean that no further proceedings could be initiated pursuant to charge memo and nothing more. The issuance of vigilance clearance has nothing to do with the stay of charge memo. Thus, no contempt is made out and the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold without issuance of notice to the respondents.
In view of the above, no contempt is made out for defiance of the interim order dated 30.5.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 600/2024. Accordingly, Contempt petition is rejected.