Dr. Sudhakar Namdeorao Gumble vs State of Maharashtra and The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry

A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 in Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2009 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short Tribunal) dropping contempt proceedings against the respondents after holding that the respondents have fully complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008, the present writ petition has been filed.

In support of writ petition, Ms. Sharwari Deshpande learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that in O.A. No. 70 of 2008 decided on 8.4.2008 the Tribunal at Mumbai Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as he was found fit on 5.1.2000 and was therefore entitled to the deemed date namely 5.1.2000, i.e. the date of his selection for promotion. According to her, this judgment and order passed by the Tribunal having become final and conclusive between the parties, in no way the finding recorded in the said judgment or the operative part, i.e. the directions issued, could be touched by the Tribunal in contempt proceedings, as has been done in the impugned judgment and order. According to her, the said date namely 5.1.2000 has been changed to 30.8.2004 in contempt proceedings by the Tribunal which is wholly without jurisdiction.

Per contra, Mrs.Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader, opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was punished in two departmental inquiries and minor penalty of withholding of one increment without future effect was imposed on him, which punishment came to an end on 31.7.2004 and therefore the petitioner could not be given the earlier date of his selection, namely 5.1.2000 as deemed date, as it would amount to wiping out the punishment that was imposed on the petitioner. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced before us. We have gone through the original judgment dated 8.4.2008 as well as the impugned judgment and order. Reading of the original judgment dated 8.4.2008 shows that the Tribunal found that the petitioner was fit for promotion on 5.1.2000 and there was a minor penalty imposed on the petitioner for one year and therefore it was essential to have the case of the petitioner considered after one year on the basis of the selection made on 5.1.2000. It is further held in para 8 of the judgment, which we quote below

We have noted from the file that as the applicant was found fit for promotion in the year 2000, because the applicant was facing an enquiry, order of promotion was not issued as of now that enquiry was over, the period of penalty that is imposed on him is also over. Thus, the respondent No. 1 is directed to assign proper deemed date to the applicant on the basis of selection made on 5.1.2000 assigning of deemed date and adjusting the seniority shall also be done within three months after order of promotion of the applicant.

It is thus seen that the plea taken by the respondents before the Tribunal about imposition of punishment and its effect was taken into consideration and thereafter the Tribunal held, as stated in para 8 above. The judgment was neither put to review nor was challenged in higher court. In the contempt proceedings, however the aforesaid plea regarding punishment on the petitioner and the period of punishment was set up in defence by the respondents and the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order accepted the same and dropped the contempt proceedings by holding that the punishment ended on 31.7.2004 and the petitioner was rightly given the deemed date as 31.8.2004. In our opinion, the Tribunal has acted totally without jurisdiction and sought to review the original judgment dated 8.4.2008 by making impugned judgment in contempt jurisdiction. In other words, in exercise of powers under contempt jurisdiction the Tribunal has usurped the jurisdiction and substituted the original judgment dated 8.4.2008by accepting the defence which was already set up and considered in the original matter. It is required to be noted that such exercise of power in contempt jurisdiction to review the original judgment dated 8.4.2008 is certainly deleterious to the judicial discipline. The Tribunal did not have any power or authority to touch the sanctity of the earlier judgment dated 8.4.2008 and thus there is clear cut error on the part of the Tribunal in interfering with the original judgment and changing the deemed date. This writ petition must therefore succeed. Consequently, we make the following order.

Writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 in Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. Proceedings of Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2009 are remitted to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, for fresh hearing and disposal in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.