Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 528 (CAL)

Ash Kumar Satkar v. R. R. Keikar

2000-10-30

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, SATYABRATA SINHA

body2000
Judgment 1. This application is directed against the order dated 27.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in C.P.C. No. 21 of 2000 with M.A. No. 329 of 2000 whereby and where under the learned Tribunal while considering the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 before it, inter alia, came to the conclusion that he had complied with the order as per as own perception and the same cannot constitute a contempt requiring drawing up of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, it was observed : "7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the disciplinary authority has in the meantime passed the final order in the D.A. proceeding on 4.7.2000, ex parte, and this order bas been brought on record by filling a supplementary petition filed on 18.1.2000. By the said order, the applicant has been removed from service. 8. After considering all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that when the final order has been passed, the applicant should file appropriate statutory appeal as per rules and if he is aggrieved by the appellate order, he will be free to agitate the matter afresh." 2. No exception to the aforementioned finding can be taken. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the contumacious acts on the part of the contemner No.2 who was the disciplinary authority as also the respondent No.6 and other contemners who are the members of the Board of Enquiry are also guilty of wilful violation of the order of the learned Tribunal dated 6.1.2000. 4. If the petitioner has any grievance in relation to the alleged contemners, we are of the opinion that it would be open to the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the learned Tribunal and the application of the petitioner to the said extent may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. 5. For the reason aforementioned, this application is disposed of. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis. Sinha, J. Ray, J.