Judgment K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. (1) IN both these petitions the petitioner Shri Mohd. Zahir Khan appeared in person. (2) THE petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer Grade II in the Customs & central Excise Department on 3/06/1958 and later he was appointed as Stenographer (O.G.) with effect from 1/08/1969. While so there were some enquiries on the basis of the charge-sheets filed against him in respect of some minor and major offences, the details of which are not very much necessary for the purpose of the instant cases. However, he was charge-sheeted on 25/09/1978 for misconduct of disobedience and the major penalty of dismissal was awarded on 26/02/1982. He filed a petition before the Supreme court and the case was remanded to the Collector, central Excise, Allahabad for fresh orders and on re-consideration he was, however, reinstated on 21/05/1984. Again on 18/02/1986 he was charge-sheeted for a major penalty and after enquiry stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was ordered on 28/03/1989. (3) EARLIER by an order dated 2/07/1981 he was transferred to Customs Division, Gorakhpur and it is alleged that he did not comply with the transfer order. However, he was placed under suspension on 5/02/1986 which was revoked on 15/10/1988 and according to the Department, the petitioner did not report for duty after such revocation in spite of directions by the authorities. However, ultimately by virtue of the order of Central Administrative tribunal ("CAT" for short). New Delhi dated September 5, 1989 the petitioner was ordered to report to the Collector, central Excise, Allahabad to join his duties and an advance amount of Rs. 5,000.00 was paid to the petitioner to meet the expenditure of travelling etc. which was received on 30/11/1989. By another order dated 31/10/1990 the CAT again directed the petitioner to join the office at Allahabad within a week. According to the Department he did not join soon after but joined only on 6/01/1992. (4) ACCORDING to the petitioner he went to Allahabad and reported to the Collector for orders but no posting order was issued nor allowance paid and during suspension he was transferred from Allahabad to Delhi obviously to enable him to attend to his cases. However, after revocation of the suspension he was informed that his headquarter ceased to be New Delhi and he ought to report to Allahabad. However, after revocation of the suspension he was informed that his headquarter ceased to be New Delhi and he ought to report to Allahabad. (5) HE filed O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 before the Principal bench of CAT, New Delhi which was admitted on the question of the order of suspension, but noting the fact that the suspension was already revoked the O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 was dismissed as infructuous. A review filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. According to the petitioner he reported for duty but he has neither been allowed to mark his attendance nor any salary and facilities admissible to a government servant, who had come , on transfer to Delhi, were made available. He filed C.C.P. (Cri.) No. 32 of 1990 purporting to be one in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 alleging that the respondents officers have committed certain illegal acts in dealing with the postings of the petitioner and not complying with the orders made in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987. This petition was rejected on 19/02/1990 by the CAT, New Delhi holding that the relief that was prayed for in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 was allowed earlier and therefore the said O.A. was dismissed as infructuous and that the petitioner cannot have any grievance namely that such an order has not been complied with or that it was flouted. As against these orders, Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 1035 of 1990 is filed. The grounds and the prayer as we find in this petition are as follows: "GROUNDS (1 Because social justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and in spite of guarantee of Fundamental Rights as defined in Part III of the Constitution, being enforced under Article 32, no protection has so far been given, either by the respondents or by the courts. (2 Because it has been said that nobody should be proceeded against and punished, without committing any offence, but in spite of this the humble petitioner is being punished without committing any of fence [as defined in any Indian laws or CCS (Conducts) Rules, 1964], (3 Because the government of India instructions, provisions of Rules and Law and Constitution are in support of the petitioner, yet he is denied justice/intervention by the authorities having jurisdiction in spite of repeated requests made to them. (4 Because the central Administrative tribunal New Delhi has neither admitted nor disposed of the O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 as provided in law and Rules of CAT Act and Procedure. (5 Because the tribunal did not utilise his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case brought on record before 16/01/1989 and also submissions/arguments made on January 16 and 17, 1989. (6 Because the tribunal has held that the suspension had been revoked, but it did not utilise its mind to the consequential reliefs as a result of revocation as the cause of action arose after revocation of the order dated 2/02/1986 of suspension. While considering the interim relief/consequential reliefs on 16/01/1989 it has held that the same has already been given to the petitioner, which is based on conjectures and surmises, as the petitioner was being treated persona non grata but the submissions made to it have fallen on unreceptive ears. (7 Because equality before, law and equal opportunity in Government service, safeguards against exploitation, are guaranteed in the Constitution, but the provisions are being observed in its breach in the cases concerning the humble petitioner, as may be seen from Annx. 1, copy of letter to Honble C.J. (8 Because the harassment and actions against the petitioner by the respondents are not covered under any instructions or provisions of Rules. To the contrary the humble petitioner has got very good case and provisions of law, rules, instructions and Constitution are in his favour, but the authorities have failed to see the same with open eyes by utilising their minds to the facts and circumstances of the case. (9 Because in spite of repeated directions issued by the CAT in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 and in various MPs in it, none of them have been complied with by the respondents. Even none of the respondents filed any counter, in spite of time taken for the same time and again, as per records of the case, but the CAT did not take cognizance of this important aspect. Even none of the respondents filed any counter, in spite of time taken for the same time and again, as per records of the case, but the CAT did not take cognizance of this important aspect. (10) Because bias and prejudicial treatment had been given to the petitioner from beginning till final rejection of the 0.A. No. 1197 of 1987 by the CAT as also by the appellate and Reviewing authorities i.e. respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 but even the Honble Supreme court, could not take cognizance of these facts while disposing of W.P. No. 1283 of 198 8/01/1989 and various CMPs in it, including a letter petition dated 13/03/1989 and CMP cum-Contempt Petition under Article 142 of the Constitution and in this regard the humble petitioner has to curse his own fate and accuse none. PRAYER IT is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 19/02/1990 passed by the CAT, Principal bench, New Delhi in CCP (Cri.) No. 32 of 1990 in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987. 2. Grant any appropriate relief as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." (6) THE petitioner, who argued his case at considerable length, submitted that on his transfer to Delhi he was not allowed to leave headquarters nor any communication was sent to him and when he tried to meet the respondents, they refused to meet him and entertain his representation and that the department people have mischievously declared him to be missing. He further submitted that he has not been paid any salary, allowance and subsistence allowance etc. and in addition he was not allowed to leave the headquarters and therefore he had been harassed and that the CAT ought to have convicted them for contempt. (7) AS already mentioned O.A, No. 1197 of 1987 was disposed of as infructuous on 17/01/1989 since the suspension was revoked by then and if the concerned authorities have not given the necessary posting or have not paid any salary and allowances as alleged by the petitioner, that by itself even assuming to be true, does not amount to contempt. (7) AS already mentioned O.A, No. 1197 of 1987 was disposed of as infructuous on 17/01/1989 since the suspension was revoked by then and if the concerned authorities have not given the necessary posting or have not paid any salary and allowances as alleged by the petitioner, that by itself even assuming to be true, does not amount to contempt. (8) THE petitioner, however, submitted that in his Contempt Petition No. 32 of 1990 in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 he has given the history of the case and he also alleged that he was not paid the subsistence allowance and failure to pay the same and the delay caused clearly amount to illegal acts on the part of the respondents. He submitted that when once the suspension was revoked and when the tribunal on that basis disposed of O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 the respondents officers were under legal duty to implement the orders of the tribunal by paying the necessary allowances and failure on their part to do so amounted to flagrant violation of orders of the CAT and therefore provisions of the Contempt of court Act were attracted and the CAT accordingly ought to have convicted the contemners namely the respondents. We may necessarily refer to the operative portion of the order dated 17/01/1989, which reads thus: "3. Thus, the relief that the applicant had prayed for has been granted to him i.e. his suspension order dated 4/02/1986 has been revoked by the order dated 5/10/1988 which was despatched to him on 10/10/1988 at his Delhi address. The relief for which the application was admitted, has, therefore, been met and in the present application, no cause of action survives any more. The petition is, accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. We make no order as to costs. Sd/- Member (J) Sd/- Member (A) dated 17/1/1989." As against this order, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 162 of 1989. The same was rejected by the CAT. Its operative portion reads thus: "3. No new facts, which were not brought out earlier have been mentioned in the R.A. All matters including his written statements and arguments were examined thoroughly. The same was rejected by the CAT. Its operative portion reads thus: "3. No new facts, which were not brought out earlier have been mentioned in the R.A. All matters including his written statements and arguments were examined thoroughly. It is seen that there is no apparent error of law or facts on the face of the documents and we see no reason to allow the R.A. If the respondents have not implemented the directions of this tribunal, the applicant can seek proper remedy according to Rules. The R.A. is rejected." Thereafter being aggrieved, this Contempt Petition No. 32 of 1990 appears to have been filed. The tribunal having heard the petitioner and perused the record passed the following order in the said contempt petition: "IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE tribunal. NEW DELHI Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Union of India ORDER 19/02/1990 C.C.P. No. 32 of 1990 in O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 Petitioner in person. Heard the petitioner Shri M.Z. Khan and perused the records. On reading the final order passed by a bench of this tribunal dated 17/01/1989, we notice that the relief which was prayed for itself was allowed earlier and as such there was no cause of action surviving and hence the original application was dismissed as having become infructuous. With respect to such an order, the petitioner, cannot have any grievance in viola-tion of the same so as to maintain the Contempt Petition. The C.C.P. is,therefore, rejected. Sd/- G. Sreedharan Nair, Sd/- B.C. Mathur, Vice-Chairman (J) Vice-Chairman (A)" It can thus be seen that the tribunal did not give any specific direction about the payment of allowances etc. The tribunal simply dismissed O.A. No. 1197 of 1987 on the ground that no cause of action survives any more and therefore in our view the contempt petition also has rightly been rejected by the tribunal. (9) THE present special leave petition is filed against the order in C.C.P. i No. 32 of 1990 and the prayer portion of it has already been extracted above. In the view we have taken that no case of contempt has been made out, we see absolutely no ground to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. (10) THE petitioner Mohd. In the view we have taken that no case of contempt has been made out, we see absolutely no ground to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. (10) THE petitioner Mohd. Zahir Khan has filed Writ Petition No. 1147 of 1991 under Article 32 of the Constitution. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition he has again traced the entire history of his case, the facts of which we have already referred to in the above special leave petition. However, in the prayer part of it, it is mentioned that a writ of certiorari to quash the charge-sheet issued against him on 31/10/1990 by the Tribunal, be issued. It may be mentioned here that the said charge-sheet was issued by the CAT staling that the petitioner committed contempt of the Tribunal on 17/05/1990 as stated therein and that he should be tried. We cannot quash the same in this writ petition under Article 32. No question of fundamental right is involved. In any event on the basis of that charge-sheet the contempt case was registered and also disposed of by the O.A. by order dated 30/08/1991. Therefore the question of quashing the charge-sheet does not arise. (11) HAVING examined the prayer part of the writ petition, we find that quashing the charge-sheet appears to be the main relief he has sought which we can not grant for the above said reasons. He has, however, mentioned several other particulars of his services and sought directions by way of a writ directing the respondents (0 to take him to the duty immediately; (ii) to pay him all the consequential reliefs as a result of his transfer; (iii) to direct the respondents to pay the dues of the petitioner as per the assurances given by them; (iv) to direct the respondents to issue the order promoting the petitioner to the higher post: (v) to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner his arrears of pay and allowances and other dues as ordered by the CAT on 5/09/1989 and 31/10/1990 with interest @ 15 per cent; and (vi) award costs and compensation as this court may deem fit. We have extracted the details of the reliefs sought only to show that the writ petition is misconceived and this court can not grant any such relief under Article 32. The writ petition is also dismissed. (12) CRI. M.P. No. 8127 of 1991 in W.P. (Cri.) No. 1147 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief. Cri. M.P. No. 590 of 1992 in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 1035 of 1990 was again another petition seeking ad interim relief. In this Cri. M.P. it is also prayed that the notice issued under Rule 56(7 of the Fundamental Rules should be quashed. It may be mentioned here that by an order dated 24/12/1991 the central Excise Collectorate passed an order under Rule 56(7 of the Fundamental Rules issuing notice to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner should retire from service on the forenoon of 25/03/1992. This is a separate issue and we are not concerned with the same in these proceedings. While arguing these two petitions again the petitioner urged that many representations made by him for change of headquarter, for payment of reliefs etc. have not been considered. As the petitioner has been repeatedly mentioning about his pay and allowances and he has been filing a number of petitions here as well as before the tribunal in this regard, we directed the respondents to file a detailed affidavit regarding the payments made to the petitioner from time to time. In the said affidavit it is mentioned that on 25/03/1992 pursuant to the notice issued under Rule 56(7 of the Fundamental Rules the petitioner was retired from service. The detail of thepayments made up to that date is annexed to the affidavit and is marked as Annx. A. As per that statement in the Annx. the government has made all the payments due to the petitioner and the same also contains the recoveries sought to be effected from the petitioner. A copy of this counter-affidavit along with Annx. has been served on the petitioner. He did not specifically deny the payments. He, however, stated that the necessary receipts are not with him. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the Under secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and we see absolutely no ground to doubt the figures mentioned in Annx. A. However, in the statement of recoveries from the petitioner, an adjustment of Rs. He, however, stated that the necessary receipts are not with him. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the Under secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and we see absolutely no ground to doubt the figures mentioned in Annx. A. However, in the statement of recoveries from the petitioner, an adjustment of Rs. 5,000.00 already paid, has been made and that is sought to be recovered. This was paid pursuant to an order passed by the CAT on 5/09/1989. As already noted though the suspension was revoked, the petitioner could not join the duty at Allahabad as according to him, he was directed not to leave the headquarter at Delhi since he was transferred to Delhi to attend to his cases. In this process the petitioner was in a fix and has been approaching the tribunal. The tribunal in the said order observed that in order to alleviate the applicants difficulties, the Principal Collector, central Excise, New Delhi shall arrange payment of suitable amount as advance to the plaintiff. Though it is indicated that the same may be adjusted later but under the circumstances, we do not think that this amount should be recovered from the petitioner. If the said amount of Rs. 5,000.00 given to the petitioner pursuant to the directions of the tribunal has already been recovered, the same may be refunded to the petitioner. If the recovery has not already been made, the same shall not be recovered. (13) BOTH the Cri. M.Ps. are accordingly disposed of.