AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)]
None for the respondents.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, which allowed O.A. No. 051/00446/2024 instituted by the petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was assailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(S) No. 2614 of 2025. The matter had further travelled upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that ultimately remanded the same to the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi for final adjudication.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has quashed and set aside the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. Para 77 of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand is being reproduced as under:
“For all the above reasons, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the Tribunal’s impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2025 and restore the Memorandum dated 27.06.2024 reverting the 1st respondent from the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) to the post of Technical Assistant.”
The order of the Tribunal was the basis for initiation and institution of the instant CP. Since, Hon’ble High Court has passed the final order on 25.09.2026 quashing the order of the Tribunal; the very basis for institution of this CP has crumbled and this proceeding in the instant C.P. cannot be continued any further. The aforesaid judgment has materially altered the legal position on which the present Contempt Petition is founded. The order alleged to have been disobeyed no longer subsists, having been quashed by the constitutional court.
This Tribunal is conscious of Rule 6 of the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992, which ordinarily provides that every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Members. Rule 6 of the CAT (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992 is being reproduced as under:
“Rule 6: Taking cognizance.- Every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Members: Provided where the contempt is alleged to have been committed in view of, presence or hearing of the Member/(s), the same shall be dealt with by the Member/(s) in accordance with section 14 of the Act”
In the circumstances, requiring the matter to remain pending solely for the purpose of placing it before a Bench of two Members, when no further proceeding is required, would result in an unnecessary prolongation of the adjudicatory process without serving any purpose other than wastage of time.
Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 may also be referred to that is being reproduced as under:
“24.Order and directions in certain cases. The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in an order passed on 14th February 2025 in Contempt Petition (Civil) in Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 477/2021 in the matter of Tirthankar Basu & Ors. Petitioner(s) Versus Nivedita Shukla Verma & Ors. Alleged Contemnor/Respondents has closed contempt proceedings after being satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending.
It is accordingly considered appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to bring the proceedings to an end at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid position, no further proceedings survive in the present Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, dropped. Pending MA also stand disposed of.
Notices stand discharged.
No order as to costs.