Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 192 (CAL)

Ratan Kumar Das v. Goutam Deb

2015-03-03

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2015
Judgment :- Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The petitioner who was an employee of the North Bengal State Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short) faced a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority by an order dated September 3, 1992, found him guilty and reduced his pay at the lowest of his Grade Pay from the date of the order. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation. According to the petitioner after repeated representations the appellate authority on April 6, 1999 dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. This compelled the petitioner to approach this court by a writ petition which was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on November 7, 2002 directing the Chairman of the Corporation to hear the appeal and to take a decision afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The order initially passed by the appellate authority was set aside. Since the appellate authority did not comply with the said order the petitioner had to file another writ petition being WP No.6202 (W) of 2007. In spite of being given liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition the respondents did not file any such and the writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on September 2, 2013 inter alia directing the appellate authority to comply with the order dated November 8, 2002 passed in the earlier writ petition and to consider the petitioner’s appeal afresh within a period of three weeks. It was further directed that the appellate authority was to give the petitioner a fresh decision after giving an opportunity of being heard to him. While passing the above order the court observed that in spite of the fact that the decision of the court was communicated in September, 2002 the appellate authority of the Corporation could not take any step in a decade’s time which was entirely due to the fault on the part of the respondent Corporation. The Court specifically directed the respondent Corporation to consider the time frame to be peremptory. The respondents were further directed to pay within three weeks a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the petitioner for the enormous delay it had committed in disposing of the appeal in spite of specific direction by this Court. The Court specifically directed the respondent Corporation to consider the time frame to be peremptory. The respondents were further directed to pay within three weeks a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the petitioner for the enormous delay it had committed in disposing of the appeal in spite of specific direction by this Court. According to the petitioner this order was communicated by the learned advocate by a covering letter dated November 26, 2013 and it was duly received by the Chairman of the Corporation on December 1, 2013. The petitioner alleges that in spite of it the alleged contemnor No.1 had not complied with the order dated November 7, 2002 nor did he consider the petitioner’s appeal. The respondents have not paid the costs either. By an application for contempt which was affirmed on April 3, 2014 the petitioner alleged that the above sequence of events clearly brought out that the alleged contemnors had no regard for the orders passed by this Court and in spite of mandatory directions they did not comply with and deliberately violated the same and as such they were liable to be punished for committing contempt of court. Rule was issued upon the alleged contemnors on September 1, 2014. On the returnable date Sri Goutam Deb, the alleged contemnor No.1, was personally present. His presence was dispensed with for the time being. The alleged contemnor No.2 could not be served as he had already retired from service on July 31, 2014. Subsequently the alleged contemnor No.2, i.e., Sri Joydeb Thakur was also personally present in court on November 28, 2014 after service of the Rule was effected on his residential address. On that date Mr. Sinha the learned advocate for the alleged contemnor filed an affidavit on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.1. In the said affidavit, described as an affidavit of compliance, Sri Goutam Deb, the Chairman of the Corporation, had tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology if by omission or commission he had violated any direction of this court in discharge of his official duties. But at the same time he maintained that he had not at all violated and failed to comply with the direction of the court. But at the same time he maintained that he had not at all violated and failed to comply with the direction of the court. Sri Deb also admitted that there was delay in complying with the directions of this court due to some administrative reasons but ultimately the petitioner was given a hearing in the appeal on October 9, 2014. After giving the petitioner a personal hearing the appellate authority upheld the order passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and the appeal was disposed of. The alleged contemnor No.1, therefore, states that the direction of the court regarding a fresh decision in the appeal was complied with and he submitted that there was no deliberate laches or negligence on the part of the contemnor No.1 in complying with the direction of this court. It appears from the order passed by the alleged contemnor No.1 on October 9, 2014 that it was submitted by the petitioner that his option for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme had already been accepted by the Corporation on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds with effect from July, 2014 and the petitioner had already received the first and second instalments of his terminal benefits and the third and the fourth instalments would be paid shortly. In this petition the court is not really concerned with the merit of the order passed by the alleged contemnor No.1. In the last writ petition out of which this application for contempt has arisen, he was directed to comply with the said order and to pay costs to the petitioner within three weeks. This order was received by the office of the alleged contemnor No.1 on December 1, 2013 and in the first week of April, 2014 when the application for contempt was filed the order was not complied with. The order was complied with, however, on October 9, 2014 which is not only after the Rule was issued but after the alleged contemnor No.1 had personally appeared in court. This takes us to the question whether the personal hearing which was given to the petitioner on October 9, 2014 can be considered as a proper compliance of the court’s order. The importance of complying with the court’s order cannot be overstated. Rule of law requires that an order passed by a court must be complied with all seriousness and its disobedience shakes the very foundation of such rule. The importance of complying with the court’s order cannot be overstated. Rule of law requires that an order passed by a court must be complied with all seriousness and its disobedience shakes the very foundation of such rule. In the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta –Vs.- Union of India and Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 273 , the Supreme Court held that the judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law and if the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. With reference to the facts of that case the Supreme Court observed: “On the contrary, there is apparent disobedience of the orders of this Court and no compliance with the orders of this Court, by their completely passive and dormant behaviour. This behaviour, besides causing serious problems in the effective implementation of the statutory scheme, has even undermined the dignity of this Court and impinged upon the basic rule of law.” That there has been a belated compliance of the court’s order has not been disputed by the petitioner. The question is whether such a compliance can be called a compliance of the court’s order in its true letter and spirit and whether by this delayed compliance the contemnors can be absolved of their liability. A similar question cropped up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sanghvi –Vs.- Kamalabai and Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 614 where the apex court observed that its order dated October 1, 2007 was required to be complied with by March 31, 2008 by vacating the premises in question. Possession was, however, delivered to the applicant landlord on July 14, 2009 after the filing of the application for contempt. The Supreme Court observed that these facts clearly showed that the conduct of the contemnors was contumacious and, therefore, strong action should be taken and contempt should be initiated against them. Thus, a compliance of the court’s order after the issue of rule of contempt can hardly be said to be a proper compliance. The Supreme Court observed that these facts clearly showed that the conduct of the contemnors was contumacious and, therefore, strong action should be taken and contempt should be initiated against them. Thus, a compliance of the court’s order after the issue of rule of contempt can hardly be said to be a proper compliance. It is no defence for the alleged contemnor No.1 that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement in the month of July, 2014 when he did not mention anything about the pendency of the appeal. I did very specifically direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within three weeks and also directed him to treat the order as peremptory. In spite of such direction he did not do it within a very long period thereafter and it was merely after the Rule was issued and he personally appeared in court that the court’s order was complied with. Even the costs were paid to the petitioner after the Rule was issued. The Chairman of the Corporation being the highest authority thereof should have been more careful about the compliance of the court’s order. In spite of very specific direction being given to treat the time frame as mandatory his submission that he had not at all violated the court’s order must be considered to be without any factual basis. “Some administrative reasons”, as mentioned in the affidavit, for the delay in complying with the Court’s direction, without anything more, does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the inaction on the part of the contemnor No.1. He should have mentioned specifically the “administrative reasons” that allegedly stood in the way of complying with the order of the Court. If the alleged contemnor No.1 had faced any difficulty to comply with the Court’s order within the time fixed he could have approached the Court and prayed for extension of time for complying with the Court’s order. He did take no steps towards that. I thus hold the contemnor No.1 guilty of willful and deliberate violation of the court’s order and he committed contempt of court. However, in view of the unqualified and unconditional apologies tendered by him the contemnor No.1 is not to be punished with any sentence or fine. I accept the apology and dispose of the contempt application with the findings as above. The alleged contemnor No.2 not being the appellate authority is not found guilty. However, in view of the unqualified and unconditional apologies tendered by him the contemnor No.1 is not to be punished with any sentence or fine. I accept the apology and dispose of the contempt application with the findings as above. The alleged contemnor No.2 not being the appellate authority is not found guilty. Rule against both of them are discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.