Kamal Narayan Tewari v. Union of India — 1994 DIGILAW 103 (CAL)

JUDGMENT The present Rule was issued on 9.9.81 and an interim order was made for maintaining status quo as on that date with regard to the petitioner's service pending disposal of the rule. The petitioner prayed for :– To issue a Rule on the Respondents to show cause why they should not be held guilty of Civil Contempt and dealt with accordingly and after hearing the parties, if necessary make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper. 2. As suggested and agreed by the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondents the matter has been taken for final disposal. The learned Advocate for the respondents, in his usual fairness has produced all the records maintained by the respondent authority in relating to this case for necessary perusal by this Court for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. An application for contempt has also been filed arising out of C. R. No. 12472 (W) of 1981. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that he is a permanent Class III employee employed for operating Pump under the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer(G), Kharagpur. The said officer is respondent No.6 in the Rule. By an order dated 4th of May, 1981, the petitioner was directed to be transferred to Baripada on administrative ground. Such order has been claimed to be mala fide, motivated and made out of grudge against the petitioner. He has given series of events prior to the order of transfer, and it has stated in the writ petition that since there was a difference between the petitioner and the authorities concerned the impugned order of transfer was made. It is further stated that the aforesaid order of transfer dated 4th of May, 1981 was neither served upon the petitioner nor it was communicated to him. The petitioner has also challenged the order of release from duty and to be reported at Balasore on a given date. The petitioner never refused to accept any order as alleged by the respondents but three letters which had nothing to do with the order of transfer were handed over to the petitioner on 5th of May, 1981. The petitioner has also challenged the order of release from duty and to be reported at Balasore on a given date. The petitioner never refused to accept any order as alleged by the respondents but three letters which had nothing to do with the order of transfer were handed over to the petitioner on 5th of May, 1981. The petitioner, however, made a representation to the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (G), respondent No.6, and he had alleged that although he was asked to go on transfer to Baripada but no reason was given for such alleged transfer. The petitioner has all along claimed that no order of transfer was either shown to the petitioner nor communicated to him. 4. It appears from the materials on record that besides the interim order of status quo a specific allegation was filed by the petitioner for injunction on 22.1.1982 and by order dated 17.2.1982, M.N. Roy, J. (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to reject the same holding, inter alia, that there was no necessity for passing any order of injunction as there is already an order of status quo and the above referred application was disposed. 5. The petitioner has filed an application for contempt against one Shri R. Balsubramonium, formerly Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur. It, further appears from the materials on record that an appeal was filed against the order dated 17.2.1982 passed by M. N. Roy, J. before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice R. N. Pyne (as Their Lordships were) and the appeal was dismissed on 16.3.1982. The writ case had, however, gone to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The matter was finally heard in case No. T. A. 19 of 1987 arising out of C.R. No. 12472 (W) of 1981 by Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Branch) on 13.7.1987 and 1.9.1987 and the case was disposed in terms of the judgment dated 1.9.1987. The Tribunal held, inter alia, that there was nothing to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. It was also noted that since six years have passed after passing of the transfer order of 1981 it was not known whether a vacancy will still available at Baripada. The Tribunal held, inter alia, that there was nothing to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. It was also noted that since six years have passed after passing of the transfer order of 1981 it was not known whether a vacancy will still available at Baripada. The writ petitioner was, however, allowed to join at Kharagpur within 10 days and his subsequent posting order, if necessary, will be made by the authorities according to the Rules. 6. It further transpires from the materials on record that by an order dated 28.4.1989, the Tribunal had directed that the petition for contempt of Court be re-transferred to the High Court. In background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the contempt petition has been heard by this Court and the same is requested to be disposed in accordance with law. 7. The definite case of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that in order to deprive him from being relieved with the interim order for maintenance of status quo as made on 19.9.1981 and in order to establish that the petitioner was allegedly released on the basis of the order of his transfer prior to issuance of the order of status quo, the respondent, Railway authorities have willfully and deliberately fabricated forged evidences namely to transfer orders and two release letters, copies whereof are annexures I, II, III and IV as annexed to the contempt petition. According to the petitioner all these four records are highly contradictory and ambiguous on the face of their contentions. The contempt petition supporting by an affidavit sworn on 18.9.1986 was filed on 11.12.1986. An application dated 6.12.1990 in the said contempt proceedings, was filed disputing the statements and documents relied on by the respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition duly affirmed on 13.1.1987. Another application dated 24.1.1991 has been filed in the same contempt proceedings alleging, inter alia, as to how and under which circumstances, the respondents relied and used all such forged and fabricated evidences. The petitioner has tried to highlight that all these documents passed and relied on by the Railway authorities and sufficient enough to establish that either of the alleged release letters (Annexures III and IV) are not in accordance with the either of the alleged transfer orders (Annexures I & II) made thereto. The petitioner has tried to highlight that all these documents passed and relied on by the Railway authorities and sufficient enough to establish that either of the alleged release letters (Annexures III and IV) are not in accordance with the either of the alleged transfer orders (Annexures I & II) made thereto. The contempt petition was earlier assigned to Hon'ble Justice S. R. Roy (As His Lordship then was) he was directed upon the petitioner on 16.12.1986 to serve a copy of the contempt application personally to the contemner concerned and accordingly it was agreed upon that Mr. R. Balsubramonium. The said R. Balsubramonium has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition on 13.1.1987. The Affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that Shri R. Balsubramonium in his Affidavit-in-Opposition dated 13th January, 1987 has disclosed, infer alia, that the transfer order No. EEANR/126/ skilled 'A' dated 4th May, 1981 transferring the petitioner from Kharagpur to Baripada was alleged issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Kharagpur. According to the petitioner this statement is absolutely false. It is highlighted that the transfer order is an unsigned one and a forged document and not issued by the Senior DPO, Kharagpur. The respondents are alleged to have relied another order of transfer. It is argued that Mr. R. K. Praharaj was not Divisional Personnel Officer, Kharagpur, at the material point of time. The then DPO, Kharagpur, was Mr. T. P. Sengupta, and he did not sign on the communication paper. There was no signature of Senior DPO, Kharagpur has falsely claimed. It is further argued that by making false statement on oath, it is another act of contempt. The affirming respondent is alleged to have made false statement and a decision has been referred reported in (1) AIR 1963 Punjab page 185 (State v. Shingara Singh) while the original records were produced the petitioner has inspected the records and the order to transfer is an unsigned one and other orders of transfer have been forged and/or fabricated. 8. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent Railway authorities, have willfully and deliberately violated the interim order dated 9.9.1981 in C.R. No. 12472(W) of 1981 where upon there was a direction of maintenance status quo. 8. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent Railway authorities, have willfully and deliberately violated the interim order dated 9.9.1981 in C.R. No. 12472(W) of 1981 where upon there was a direction of maintenance status quo. The petitioner has also challenged the order of transfer as Annexure by putting ante dated 29.4.1981 by means of forging the signature II and the same is alleged to have been fabricated in July, 1987 of Mr. S. Sivasankaran, Ex. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, Kharagpur, and Mr. S. N. Tripathi, Ex. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Kharagpur. This was fraudulently used as genuine evidence. The entire opportunity of argument of the petitioner is that the respondent had prevented the petitioner from doing his duty at Kharagpur on the basis of such forged and fabricated transfer order and baseless release letters. Neither they allowed him to perform his duties and nor paid his salaries. This acts have affected the pensionary and retirement benefits of the petitioner. The respondents are alleged to have violated the order of status quo as made on 9.9.1981. 9. Mr. Snehatosh Mazumder, learned advocate for the contesting respondents has submitted that the contempt petition is mis-conceived and since and in view of the section contempt of Courts Act, 1971. C.R. No. 12472 (W) of 1981 was ultimately transferred to the Tribunal and the same has been disposed. The order of transfer does not interfere and the present contempt petition is speculative and frivolous adventure of the petitioner. It is submitted that the previous contempt petitions were also considered and dismissed. Patiently this Court has heard the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondents at length. This Court has also gone through the pleadings of the parties. This Court has also perused the records produced by the respondents, Railway authorities. The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the impugned order of transfer was challenged and an interim order of status quo was made by Mr. T.K. Basu, J. (as His Lordship then was) on 9.9.1981. It is stated that in order to frustrate the order of status quo certain orders of transfer and orders of release were alleged to have been fabricated and forged and those orders of transfer namely Annexures I and II do not bare the official seal and signature of the authorities concerned at the relevant point of time. It is stated that in order to frustrate the order of status quo certain orders of transfer and orders of release were alleged to have been fabricated and forged and those orders of transfer namely Annexures I and II do not bare the official seal and signature of the authorities concerned at the relevant point of time. The petitioner has tried to made out a case that serious attempt has been made to circumvent the order of stay granted by the High Court by issuing forged and fabricated evidences. If there is any attempt to create false evidences and use forged documents to obtain favourable justice is an offence punishable according to law. Unless such an evidence is proved before the appropriate forum the question of contempt does not arise. Regard being had to the materials on record and considering the nature of grievance and the records so far produced this Court does not find any act of contempt in the manner as alleged. But, however, the judicial consensus of this Court is not satisfied if there is no proper direction to hold a proper enquiry by the competent authority as to the genuineness of the impugned order of transfer and the order of release orders to ascertain the reality in the proper perspective. Considering this limited scope the contempt petition is disposed by granting leave to the petitioner to make a proper representation to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway Authority who will dispose the said representation within three months from the date of filing by holding an independent enquiry as to the genuineness of the impugned order of transfer and/or order of release as to whether those were done by the appropriate authorities or those were fabricated or forged. A report of compliance will however, be filed within a month from the date of disposal of the representation as indicated above. There is no order as to costs.