Rakesh Misra vs P. Krishnaraj

Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This Original Petition is filed against Exhibit P10 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in Contempt Petition No. 53/2014 in O.A. No. 12/2013 directing the petitioners to be personally present before the Tribunal on 10.11.2014 for framing charges.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents filed O.A. No. 12/2013, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 13.8.2013. In this order, the Tribunal took the view that mutual transfer is impermissible between an employee belonging to a general category and a reserved category and vice versa. This order of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court in O.P. (CAT) No. 5/2014 by judgment dated 06.03.2014.

Subsequently, when orders were again issued by the petitioners allowing mutual transfers, respondents filed Contempt Petition No. 53/2014 alleging that such orders were issued in violation of the directions of the Tribunal and that therefore, amounts to Contempt of Court, requiring proceedings against them. In the said petition, the petitioners herein filed Exhibits P6 and P7 affidavits justifying the orders mainly relying on the Railway Board's Circular Nos. 107/2007 and 134/2007. A Division Bench of the Tribunal heard the matter on 30.9.2014 and orders were reserved.

It appears that, subsequently, Exhibit P11 order dated 2.10.2014, the transfer orders, which led to the filing of the Contempt Petition, were cancelled. Although there was no Division Bench sitting in the Tribunal subsequent to 30.9.2014, the matter was mentioned before the Single Bench of the Tribunal on 7.10.2014 and accordingly, the case was posted before that Bench on 8.10.2014. On that day an affidavit was submitted to the Tribunal reporting the developments subsequent to 30.9.2014 including the passing of the order dated 2.10.2014. However, the Tribunal passed Exhibit P8 order returning the affidavit mainly on the ground that the same was filed after orders were reserved by the Division Bench on 30.9.2014.

Subsequently, the affidavit was re-presented by the petitioners along with Exhibit P9 Miscellaneous Application, M.A. No. 180/01155/2014. The order dated 2.10.2014 was also enclosed to the said application. Still later, on 21.10.2014, Exhibit P 10 order was pronounced by the Tribunal pursuant to the hearing that was concluded on 30.9.2014. In the said order, the Tribunal found that a prima facie case of contempt was made out and that the petitioners should be present before the Tribunal on 10.11.2014 for framing charges. It is in this background, this Original Petition is filed, mainly aggrieved by Exhibit P 10 order.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners made an attempt to persuade us to take the view that despite the order in O.A. No. 12/13, Railway Board's order No. 134/2007 still governs the field. But, taking note of the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality especially in view of its confirmation by this Court by dismissing OP (CAT) No. 5/2014 and as the Railways did not seek any clarification from the Tribunal or this Court, we are not inclined to accept the said submission made.

However, it is a fact that, as at present M.A. No. 1155/2014 is pending before the Tribunal, where the order dated 2.10.2014 cancelling the transfer orders is also produced. That apart, even in relation to the alleged technical breach of the order in the O.A., the petitioners have undertaken before this Court that they shall file an unconditional apology before the Tribunal itself. In such circumstances, we feel that before proceeding further with Exhibit P10 order dated 21.10.2014, justice demands that the Tribunal should consider M.A. No. 1155/2014 along with the unconditional apology that is undertaken to be filed.

Therefore, we dispose of this Original Petition directing that the Tribunal shall consider M.A. No. 1155/2014 in C.P. No. 53/2014 in O.A. 12/13 on the next date of posting, provided, in the meanwhile, an unconditional apology is filed by the petitioners, as undertaken before this Court, if an apology is so filed, until M.A. No. 1155/2014 is considered and orders are passed, the Tribunal shall not proceed further with Exhibit P10 and depending upon its order in M.A. 1155/2014, it would be open to the Tribunal to pass further orders on Exhibit P10.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the proceedings in C.P. No. 53/2014 and that is a matter to be gone into by the Tribunal, in case it chooses to do so, after M.A. No. 1155/2014 is disposed of.

Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.