AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsels for the proposed contemnors and perused the records.
The operative part of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 257 of 2015 is extracted below:
“13.Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders dated 14.03.2012, 04.06.2014 and 01.12.2014 are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules. The said exercise may be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.”
The applicant states that copy of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024 was served to the proposed contemnors vide representation dated 20.02.2024, but the respondents have failed to comply with the order.
In response, vide affidavit dated 23.07.2025, the proposed contemnors stated that it was decided to comply with the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024 and the proceedings were underway but one State witness was involved in an accident and so three months more were required for compliance. Subsequently, an application for urgent hearing was filed on behalf of the proposed contemnors vide C.M.P. No. 3201 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025.
The applicant filed objection vide affidavit dated 19.05.2026 contending that the proposed contemnors have issued another charge sheet on 28.01.2025, the enquiry officer has submitted his report and the applicant has submitted objection against the same on 01.10.2025 and that the application for extension of time may be rejected.
The proposed contemnors have filed affidavit dated 10.07.2026 stating that the enquiry officer submitted his report on 09.09.2025, the disciplinary authority forwarded the enquiry report to the applicant on 16.09.2025 and the applicant’s representation was submitted on 13.10.2025 and extension of time for four weeks may be granted. Further, vide affidavit dated 27.07.2026, the proposed contemnors state that following the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024, the applicant was promptly reinstated in service. They aver that the direction to proceed afresh inherently empowers the disciplinary authority to issue an administratively sound, updated, or revised charged memorandum to reflect the complete quantum of misconduct without altering the core nature of charge. In support of their contention, the proposed contemnors cite Anand Narain Shukla vs State of Madhya Pradesh AFR 1979 SC 123; Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs B Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd vs Anata Saha (2011) 5 SCC 142.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in regard to the subject matter of contempt in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Ors vs P Ravi Kumar & Ors 2024 INSC 957:
“1.10In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is noted that in OA No. 257 of 2015, this Tribunal, while quashing the impugned orders, had granted liberty to the proposed contemnors to proceed afresh against the applicant in accordance with law and as per rules. We are mindful of the fact that while granting liberty to the proposed contemnors to proceed afresh against the applicant, we had not qualified the word ‘afresh’ by specifying the stage from which proceedings had to be commenced. In view of this position, we cannot hold that the word ‘afresh’ does not grant latitude to the proposed contemnors to issue a fresh charge sheet.
The intent of proposed contemnors in regard to compliance with the judgment and order dated 14.02.2026 would be reflected in their actions. It is not disputed that the proposed contemnors have reinstated the applicant. Coming to the matter of the charge sheet, perusal of the representation dated 01.10.2025 of the applicant addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Pune reveals that earlier charge sheet dated 28.08.2010 was for alleged unauthorized absence for 5 years 6 months and 12 days whereas the subsequent charge sheet dated 28.01.2025 alleges unauthorized absence for 6 years, 3 months and 19 days. It is observed that there is no change in the nature of the alleged misconduct; the change is in the duration of alleged unauthorized absence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proposed contemnors have taken the cover of the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024 to change the nature of the misconduct alleged against the applicant. Finally, we are also mindful of the fact that the proposed contemnors had filed an application for urgent hearing on 16.12.2025 while the issue of fresh charge sheet was raised by the applicant later in the affidavit dated 19.05.2026; further, we note that the applicant has already represented on 01.10.2025 against the enquiry report.
In conclusion, we cannot hold that the proposed contemnors have wilfully disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 14.02.2024.
In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant a period of four weeks from today to the proposed contemnors for consideration of the applicant’s representation dated 01.10.2025 and passing of final order thereon by the disciplinary authority.
In view of the foregoing and with the above direction, this Contempt Petition is closed.