1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Dasharath Singh Yadav vs Santosh Kumar N And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|16 August, 2019
Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5167 of 2019 Applicant :- Dasharath Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- Santosh Kumar N. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Writ-A No.53897 of 2017 (Dasharath Singh Yadav v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and others). The said order has been corrected on 10.09.2018. For ready reference, the relevant extract of order dated 24.08.2018 is quoted as under:-
"In our opinion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are thoroughly misconceived and rather in the nature of a review of its earlier judgment and order dated 28.08.2009 passed in another claim proceeding. Once the Tribunal in the previous proceedings, while passing the order dated 28.08.2009 had quashed the penalty order dated 22.04.1991 nothing remained to be remitted to the appellate authority as any pending appeal before the appellate authority would have as a consequence become infructuous once the punishment order itself stood quashed. May be the petitioner who is appearing in person had not challenged the proceedings before the appellate authority that would not validate the order of the appellate authority which was otherwise illegal and a nullity. So far as the applicability of the provisions of Rule 129 of the P & T Manual, Volume-III to the proceedings before Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan is concerned, we are satisfied that the said rule has no application to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, which is governed by its own rules and regulations and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
We in fact note that the department had never approached the High Court challenging the order dated 28.08.2009 nor did it file any application for review or for clarification of the said order with regard to the quashing of the punishment order dated 22.04.1991. The respondents also in their counter affidavit have not disclosed what was the nature of the charges against the petitioner which resulted in his dismissal from service. The charge sheet has not been filed with the counter affidavit nor has any enquiry report been placed before us. We find that the matter has been travelling in and out of the portals of the Tribunal and of this Court since 1991 and the petitioner is now 64 years of age has also retired from service and that it would not serve the ends of justice to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority. Even otherwise, as already noted above, the previous order of the Tribunal was never put to challenge by the respondents, therefore our considered view is that the matter should be given a quietus now.
We, therefore find that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 13.09.2017 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly quashed.
We also find that since the penalty order dated 22.04.1991 had itself been set aside by the Tribunal in previous proceedings and thereafter there were no proceedings pending before the Tribunal nor was any direction given to proceed afresh in the departmental proceedings at any stage the petitioner who has long retired and cannot be reinstated in service, will nevertheless be entitled for regularization of the period he was under suspension with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall settle all the consequential benefits, financial benefits and retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."
It has been averred in the affidavit filed alongwith the contempt application that a certified copy of the aforesaid order alongwith other documents were submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the applicant the order through the self- addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 16.8.2019 A. Pandey
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
  • In