Sushanta Kumar Sen vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

An original application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 presented before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner (O.A. 1330 of 2011) was disposed of June 05, 2013 with the following directions:

"12. We accordingly direct the Respondents, particularly, Respondent no. 3 to review the case of the applicant in the light of the decisions taken in the case of Prakash Kumar Chowdhury and others as cited by the applicant and if the applicant is similarly placed, then we direct the State Respondent to grant similar benefits as have been allowed to said Prakash Kumar Chowdhury and others like exemption from passing departmental examination with effect from the date of retirement, grant of increments on due dates on notional basis, refixation of pay and sanction of retirement benefits on the basis of notional pay on the date of retirement. We further direct that this order should be complied with by issue of necessary orders to be communicated to the applicant within a period of 4(four) months from the date of communication of this judgment."

The words 'and others' after Prakash Kumar Chowdhury referred to in the aforesaid extract, as would appear from paragraph 8 of the judgment of the tribunal, are Sudam Ch. Das, Ratan Lal Saha, Kaushik Halder and Syamal Das.

Alleging that the respondents in the original application had deliberately failed and neglected to implement the directions passed by the tribunal, the petitioner had invoked the contempt jurisdiction. His application was registered as CCP 101 of 2014. In course of hearing the contempt application, the tribunal on April 09, 2015 had the occasion to consider a compliance report filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor. The tribunal was of the view that there had been no proper consideration of the claim of the petitioner in the light of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated June 05, 2013 and, accordingly, the alleged contemnor was directed to file a full and appropriate compliance report without fail by June 02, 2015.

The alleged contemnor, on June 02, 2015 filed a report showing the developments in the matter and regretting his inability to dispose of the matter until and unless the views of the P &AR Department are received. A single member Bench of the tribunal recorded that it was not a compliance report in accordance with the earlier order dated April 09, 2015. However, since the Chairman-in-charge was not part of the Bench that day, further consideration was deferred and the contempt application directed to be listed on July 21, 2015. An order was passed by the tribunal on September 28, 2015 directing the Principal Secretary, P&AR Department to take a decision on the reference made by the alleged contemnor in pursuance of the judgment and order of the tribunal dated June 05, 2013.

The next order dated December 02, 2015 records that a report was submitted on behalf of the alleged contemnor purportedly styled as a 'Compliance Report'. The tribunal, however, noted that the main issue had not been addressed in terms of the earlier order of the tribunal and, accordingly, the report was rejected. A direction followed for filing of a comprehensive and appropriate report from the P&AR Department in conformity with the order of the tribunal, which was also quoted. The application was directed to be listed on January 13, 2016.

On January 20, 2016, a further compliance report was submitted. The tribunal noticed an error in such report and, accordingly had not accepted the compliance report submitted by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, P&AR Department. While adjourning hearing till March 18, 2016, a fresh compliance report was called for.

By an order dated August 05, 2016, a last chance was given for filing of a compliance report. A further compliance report was filed on September 22, 2016. While granting liberty to the petitioner to file an objection thereto, hearing was adjourned till December 05, 2016. Objection filed on December 05, 2016 was taken on record and the application adjourned for further hearing till March 14, 2017.

The application for contempt was heard on March 15, 2017. Considering the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner, the tribunal proceeded to direct filing of a fresh comprehensive report touching on the entire aspect of the matter in the light of the parent order dated June 05, 2013. This order resulted in filing of another compliance report dated April 20, 2017.

It was, thereafter, that the tribunal proceeded to pass an order dated February 22, 2018 rejecting the application for contempt, the propriety and/or correctness whereof has been challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner sought to contend that the tribunal proceeded to reject the contempt application considering the report of compliance filed on September 21, 2016, although such report, at an earlier stage of the proceeding, was not accepted by the tribunal. It is, accordingly, submitted by Mr. Saha Roy that the order of the tribunal impugned in this writ petition suffers from non-application of mind and, therefore, upon setting aside of such order dated February 22, 2018, the tribunal ought to be directed to consider the matter and decide the question of compliance of the order dated June 05, 2013 afresh.

Indeed, it appears to be so. The tribunal in its anxiety to ensure full and faithful compliance of its order went on asking for compliance reports and by the time the application for contempt was finally heard and rejected, more than three reports had seen the light of the day. The report filed on September 21, 2016 was not accepted, as it appears from the order dated March 14, 2017, referred to above. The tribunal held that in such compliance report only the case of Prakash Kumar Chowdhury was highlighted whereas the cases of other similarly situated persons, as pointed out by the petitioner, did not find place therein. It was thereafter that the tribunal called for a fresh comprehensive report touching upon the entire aspect of the matter.

However, despite our satisfaction that the compliance report filed by the alleged contemnor on September 21, 2016 was not accepted by the tribunal, we do not feel persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Saha Roy that the matter ought to be remitted and hence do not consider it necessary to make any order, as prayed for by him, for the reason that follows.

It appears from the compliance report filed before the tribunal on April 20, 2017 that the claims of the petitioner to the effect that he was similarly situated as Sudam Ch. Das, Ratan Lal Saha, Kaushik Halder and Syamal Das were duly considered and the reasons for concluding that the cases of the aforesaid four officers stood on completely different footing than that of the petitioner was clearly assigned. That apart, the petitioner's claim qua Prakash Kumar Chowdhury was also examined elaborately and it was observed that the petitioner could not have legally claimed any benefit, as had been extended to Prakash Kumar Chowdhury. Instead of referring to the report filed on September 21, 2016, reference to the report filed on April 20, 2017, if made by the tribunal would have been apt and on this score the order of the tribunal does not warrant interference.

An action to punish for contempt could result in penal consequences. The proceedings are, therefore, quasi-criminal in nature. The standard of proof applicable is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged contemnor was entitled to urge that there being substantial compliance of the order, the proceeding should be dropped.

A submission was advanced by Mr. Saha Roy that in the objection to the report filed on April 20, 2017, it had been indicated by the petitioner that the statements in paragraph 8 and 9 of such report were incorrect. It is, thus, not a proper report.

We are of the considered view, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 : J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors. that such an issue cannot be examined in course of contempt proceedings and if at all, could form the subject-matter of decision of a Court exercising the power of judicial review.

In that view of the matter, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition. The same stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

Needless to observe, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the tribunal afresh for relief, if so advised, questioning the correctness of the compliance report filed on April 20, 2017.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.