Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 258 (GAU)

Paritosh Saha v. P. K. Adak and Another

1999-08-04

P.C.PHUKAN

body1999
I have heard Mr. DK Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the alleged contemner No.l Shri PK Adak, General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, Tripura Project, Agartala. None appears for the alleged contemner No.2 Shri AG Sarkar, Chief. Chemist (P&A), ONGC, Tripura Project, Agartala. 2. This Court by an order dated 1.2.1999 issued a Notice of Motion calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against them. An affidavit-in-opposition showing cause has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemner-respondent No. 1. 3. I have considered the records of the case. 4. The petitioner filed a writ petition registered as Civil Rule No. 134 of 1994 in this Court seeking appropriate writ for setting aside the Memo dated 2.3.1985 imposing penalty of withholding of two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect and also for quashing the Memo dated 5.6.992 by which promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Drilling) was cancelled. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 8.2.1995 refused to set aside the Memo dated 2.3.1985 withholding two increments of the petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge set aside the Memo dated 5.6.1992 cancelling the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.1.1988 holding that the penalty of stoppage of two increments of the petitioner was effective till 31.12.1987 and it was no longer in currency on and from 1.1.1988. 5. On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 27.11.97 passed in Writ Appeal No. 7 of 1995 and Writ Appeal No. 28 of 1995 preferred by the petitioner and the respondents respectively, refused to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order in respect of the Memo dated 2.3.1985 withholding two increments of the petitioner. The Division Bench, however, modified the learned Single Judge's order to the extent that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Drilling) would be effective from 1.1.1986 and not from 1.1.1988 drawing an inference that the respondent authority was not inclined to give effect to the order of punishment of withholding two increments which has not been given effect to till the Division Bench passed the order. Admittedly, in obedience to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench the respondent-authority passed necessary orders promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Drilling) wef 1.1.86. The respondent authority, however, issued another order dated 20.8.98 (Annexure A to this petition). Full text of this order is given below : “Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Tripura Project, Agartala DBG (P&A) No. AGT/20/1081/77-Estt dated 20.8.98 Office Order Consequent upon his appointment to the post of AE (Drilling) wef 1.1.86 vide office order No.GM/CR/Estt/2/Pay dated 16.6.98 in the pay scale of Rs.1030-2000/-and subsequent revision of pay scale of officers wef 1.1.87 and 1.1.92 pay of Shri Paritosh Sana has been fixed as under : Period Pay fixed Scale of pay 1.l.86Rs.1030 Rs.l030-50-1380-60-1800-100-2000(Pre-revised) 1.1.87 Rs.2450 Rs.2250-100-4150 (Pre-revised) 1.l.88Rs.2450 No increment -do- 1.l.89Rs.2550 -do- 1.1.90 Rs.2650+60PF -do- 1.l.91Rs.2850 -do- 1.1.92 Rs.4680 Rs. 4500-7100 (Revised) 1.l.92Rs.5281 -do- 1.l.93Rs.5492 -do- 1.l.94Rs.5712 -do- 1.1.95Rs.5940 -do- 1.l.96Rs.6178 -do- l.1.97Rs,6425 -do- 1.1.98Rs.6682 -do- He will not get any increment on 1.1.87 and 1.1.88. This issues with the recorded approval of CGM (P) with concurrence of Associated Finance. Sd/- Illegible Dy.Manager (P&A) For Chief Chemist (P&A) Distribution: 1. Individual concerned through HDBO Local 2. SFAO-DCS/DBG local He will not earn any increment during 1987 and 1988, as penalty was imposed for stoppage of 2 (two) increments vide No. AGT/27/353/ V&D/84, dt. 2/3/85. 3.HDBG Local.” 6. The petitioner contends that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court by issuing the above order that “he will not earn any increment during 1987 and 1988 as penalty was imposed for stoppage of 2 (two) increments vide No. AGT/27/353/V&D/ 84 dated 2.3.85” which runs counter to the Division Bench's observation at para 13 of the judgment that "It is also a fact that the order of punishment has not been given effect to till now. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that the respondent-authority was not at all inclined to give effect to the order of punishment." This inference drawn by the Division Bench cannot be construed as a direction to the respondent-authority not to give effect to the said order of punishment which has not been set aside by the learned Single Judge nor by the Division Bench and has been very much in force awaiting implementation. It is, however, beyond one's comprehension why this order of punishment was not implemented so long. 7. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are not guilty of any disobedience to the judgment and order of the Division Bench, not to speak of any 'wilful disobedience' as envisaged in section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Mr. Deb Submits that the essential ingredient is wilful disobedience and in support thereof refers to the decisions reported in (1992) 1 SCC 152 ; (1993) 2 GLR 292; (1994) 6 SCC 332 and (1999) 2 SCC 537 . 8. In (1992) 1 SCC 152 para 9 (Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar) it has been held : “The interpretation placed by the Commissioner, therefore, is not correct and if that interpretation is accepted it would efface the very effect of the order of this Court dated February 7,1991 and defeat the object of that order which was aimed at providing that all the schools must have teachers................ The Commissioner has made an order which, in our opinion, is not in conformity with the directions given by this Court and the Division Bench of the High Court .... .... .... .... From the materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that it is a case in which it can conclusively be said that the respondents have wilfully or deliberately or contemptuously flouted or disobeyed the orders of this Court dated February 7,1991 and is, therefore, not a fit case in which contempt proceedings need to proceed any further. We, accordingly, drop the contempt proceedings and discharge the rule issued against the respondents.” 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the decisions cited above, I have no hesitation to say that no prima facie case of contempt has been made out against the respondents. Hence, no contempt proceeding need be initiated. 10. This contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.