Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2407 (RAJ)

Inder Singh Rajpurohit v. Preetam Singh

2006-08-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, RAJESH BALIA

body2006
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This contempt petition and the reply submitted thereto by Respondent No. 2 shows the casual and cavalier fashion in which the respondents have treated and dealt with the directions issued by this Court. 2. Way back in 1986 in a petition filed in 1984, the applicant was dismissed from service by respondent Corporation which was subjected to SB Civil Writ Petition No. 305/84. The applicant was a driver and was employed by the respondent Corporation to ply its vehicle. The appellate order of affirming the punishment was found to be bad and this Court by order dated 10.06.1986 quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 22.02.1984 and directed the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to remain present himself before the appellate authority on 31.07.1986 which he duly complied with. 3. No order having been passed in appeal, therefore, the petitioner under mistaken advice took recourse to industrial disputes challenging the order of punishment and reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court made an award on 09.04.1999, it found that since the matter has already been sub judiced before the High Court and orders are made, the adjudication of the dispute about validity of the termination order is barred by constructive res judicata. 4. Against the award of Labour Court, another writ petition was preferred by the applicant as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1076/2000 praying therein for quashing the award of Labour Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25.04.2000 and in the special appeal preferred against that order, the Division Bench made the following order on 22.09.2004:- “Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is every likelihood of appeal having been decided upto now. The appeal is said to have been filed in the year 1986 it cannot be expected to remain pending but since the record is not traceable, definite information is not coming forthwith. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his appeal has not been decided as per his information. In view of the above, if appeal has not been decided, the same may be decided forthwith. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his appeal has not been decided as per his information. In view of the above, if appeal has not been decided, the same may be decided forthwith. It is directed that the appeal if decided, the result may be communicated to the appellant, otherwise, if the same has not been decided, the same be decided after reconstruction of the record. The appellant will co-operate with the respondents for reconstruction of the record.” 5. From scrutiny of the record of the writ petition, we further find that the Corporation too was represented before the Labour Court though its representative and the Corporation had objected to maintainability of the industrial dispute by relying on the decision of this Court dated 10.07.1986 passed in the earlier writ petition referred to above. 6. This unmistakably discloses that throughout the proceedings since passing of the order dated 10.07.1986 the respondents were aware about setting aside of the appellate order and directions for deciding the appeal after hearing the incumbent and by making a reasoned speaking order. In spite of all these facts and enquiry after making of the order by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.09.2004, the departmental appeal was not decided by the appellate authority. It has never been the case of the respondents anywhere that in pursuance of the order dated 010.1986, the appellate authority decided the appeal. 7. Yet on 07.03.2005, a letter was addressed to the applicant that he will inform whether he has preferred any appeal in 1986 against order of punishment as if directions were issued by this Court to file appeal afresh and only then it was required to be considered by the appellate authority. Apparently, this communication was in callous disregard of the directions issued by this Court which was well within the knowledge of the appellate authority on the date the letter was issued. It appears to have been issued to camouflage the non compliance of the order having remained non complied with for almost 19 years. To it, on 29.04.2005, the respondents informed the applicant that he has failed to prove that he has ever filed an appeal. It appears to have been issued to camouflage the non compliance of the order having remained non complied with for almost 19 years. To it, on 29.04.2005, the respondents informed the applicant that he has failed to prove that he has ever filed an appeal. In response to the communication dated 29.04.2005, the petitioner enclosed thereto copy of the termination order, memo of appeal and other relevant materials which was with him collectively marked as Annexure-D to the letter and requested the appellate authority to decide his appeal on merit within 15 days. Strangely, by 28.04.2005, request was responded with communication that his appeal has already been decided on 22.02.1984 and no orders now needed to be passed. This letter clearly goes to show that the respondents were acting only in dally dallying the matter, having no interest to comply with the directions of this Court and keeping the suit or in perennial order. On the other hand, they were inquiring about the filling of the appeal as they were not aware of the order dated 10.06.1986 and 22.09.2004 and they were unable to decide the appeal for want of record, coolly informing the applicant that his appeal has been decided in 1984 which were to their knowledge was quashed in 1986 as if no such orders existed. Copy of the order dated 22.02.1984 was sent to the applicant. This led to filing of this application. 8. Considering all these facts in chronology, the Respondent No. 2 who is the appellate authority was required to remain present himself in response to the notice and subsequently after issuing of notice, the Respondent No. 2 was not present in person on the first date praying dispensing with his personal presence on which time was granted and upto now reply has been submitted. 9. The reply appears to be an escape route by referring to the communication dated 28.04.2005 as having been issued merely stating that despite abundant caution, the communication regarding non pendency of any proceeding was issued to the petitioner for which the replying respondents apologize ignoring two communications quoted on the guidelines of which the communication dated 28.04.2005 came into existence, goes to show that the Respondent No. 2 is not honest about averments made in the application nor the apology of a repentable smell. 10. 10. If the officer was inquiring about pendency of the appeal and the order of the High Court was within his knowledge and he was taking all abundant caution that the High Court orders are to be complied with prompt dispatch, the communication dated 28.04.2005 could never come into existence which has not only been sent routinely without any care or caution by referring to old decision which has been quoted by this Court and on the basis of which only proceedings of Labour Court were negated and without affording to look at the fact that the applicant has submitted reply to this communication referred to above. This Court, which bring to notice about pendency of appeal and orders of the copy of memo of appeal was accompanied with the order and other relevant materials as stated in the letter referred by us above. Ignoring all these facts, if Respondent No. 2 thought it fit in indulging in mundane and wrong communication it only shows deliberate disregard responsible discharge of his office and finding no escape of his not deciding the appeal in 20 years in defiance of directions of this Court twice made. 11. It now appears to have passed order on appeal vide communication R/1 submitted alongwith the reply on 28.06.2006 which order Prima facie appears to be a mechanical execise to unbecoming the yoke of these proceedings which on the face of it appears to be suffering from the same vice for which the original order was quashed. 12. Without saying anything more, we are unable to accept the apology submitted after making all the explanations as an unconditional apology of the repentant contemnor. We, therefore, reject such apology, tendered only with a view to get over these proceedings without any genuine concern and repentance for sheer total disregard of directions issued by this Court. 13. 12. Without saying anything more, we are unable to accept the apology submitted after making all the explanations as an unconditional apology of the repentant contemnor. We, therefore, reject such apology, tendered only with a view to get over these proceedings without any genuine concern and repentance for sheer total disregard of directions issued by this Court. 13. Looking to non compliance of the directions of this Court with callous negligence which is apparent on the face of record, we deem it just and proper to convict the Respondent No. 2 who is the appellate authority for the 1998 coming contempt of this Court by willfully disobeying the directions of this Court to decide the appeal of the applicant within reasonable time from the order dated 10.07.1986 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 305/84 and DB Special Appeal (W) No. 470/2000 dated 22.09.2004 and trying to camouflage his non compliance by not deciding the appeal within time on one pretext or the other. On our inquiry, it was brought to our notice that the same officer is occupied since 1988 and now, therefore, he is very much aware of the proceedings of the appellate Court, the order of this Court dated 10.07.1986 and the order passed by the Division Bench directing him to inspect the record and decide the appeal within reasonable time in 2004 and then in 2006 indulged into irrelevant and deliberate wrong communications with the applicant which makes it fit case for punishing the Respondent No. 2. 14. In the facts and circumstances, we direct Respondent No. 2 to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case the fine is not paid, he shall further undergo sentence for a term of 7 days simple imprisonment. 15. On a prayer being made for suspending the sentence in order to enable him to take remedial course against this order, we suspend the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 60 days on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to surrender on expiry of 60 days before this Court to undergo sentence unless otherwise ordered by any competent Court during this period. In that event, the said order shall be produced before this Court.