Municipal Committee, Bhiwani vs Shri K.K. Jalan, I.A.S. and another

V. Ramaswami, C.J.—This contempt petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the order dated December 16, 1987, of the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, which is marked as Annexure P.6 in this contempt application, is contrary to and in the teeth of the order dated December 2, 1987 of this Court in C.W.P. No. 8060 of 1987, and it amounted to contempt of this Court. The said order dated December 16, 1987, purported to suspend a Sanitary inspector of the Municipal Committe, Bhiwani, with retrospective operation from November 7, 1987. Retrospective suspension is a contradiction in terms. No retrospective suspension is possible and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, therefore, appears to be wholly illegal. We are aware that on November 7, 1987, the same Sanitary Inspector was suspended by the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee. That order was revoked by the Municipal Committee by a resolution dated November 9, 1987 and the said Sanitary Inspector was reinstated. The Deputy Commissioner purported to suspend this reinstatement order of the Municipal Committee in the proceedings dated November 13, 1987. That order of the Deputy Commissioner was questioned in this Court in C.W.P. No. 8604 of 1987. At the time of final disposal of that writ petition, it was reported by the respondents that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated November 13, 1987, has been revoked and the relief sought for by the petitioner has been given and, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accepted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, reinstatement order of the Municipal Committee has been given effect to and the order suspending the reinstatement order had been revoked and no further orders were, therefore, necessary. The net result, therefore, was that though the said Sanitary Inspector might not have been working or under suspension, he was not under suspension for the entire period from November 7, 1987, till December 16, 1987. It is in these circumstances that we have taken the view that the retrospective suspension is not valid. In fact the learned Advocate General, Haryana, fairly accepted that this is the correct position in law and the retrospective suspension cannot be sustained in law. But even on the ground that the order is illegal, we cannot say that it amounts to any contempt of this Court. Our order dated December 2, 1987, related to the illegality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated November 13, 1987, and that has not been revived. It is a fresh order of suspension with retrospective operation. If he had the power, he could have done that, but since we are of the view that no retrospective suspension is possible, it can be termed as illegal but does not amount to contempt.

Learned counsel for the petitioners several contentions enumerated in the contempt application. They all relate to illegal interference by the Deputy Commissioner in the day to day working of the Municipal Committee. But if the petitioners are well-founded in these contentions, that could form the basis of a separate writ petition but that cannot be taken as contempt of any proceedings of this Court.

In the above circumstances, subject to the observations relating to the order dated December 2, 1987, there will be an order accordingly in the contempt petition and the rule stands discharged.