Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 195 (JHR)

Subas Singh v. Union of India

2020-01-31

S.N.PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. 1. The instant contempt application is under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1485 of 2015, whereby and whereunder following direction has been passed: “This Court after assessing the factual aspects and settled position of law is of the view that the order as contained under Annexure-9 since has been passed without providing an appropriate of hearing therefore the same is held to be unsustainable and accordingly quashed. It is the further view of this Court that the order passed by the appellate authority, since is cryptic, hence the same is also held to be non-sustainable accordingly quashed. It is also settled that on technicality no one can be given any benefit, therefore, the issue is being remitted before the authority for passing a fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which shall be presented by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of its receipt. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the order dated 13.12.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1485 of 2015 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit since there is specific direction in the order passed by the writ Court while remitting the matter before the authority for passing fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, being assisted by Ms. Apoorva Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order dated 12.02.2019, as contained in Annexure 3 to the contempt petition has submitted that as directed by the writ Court no opportunity of hearing has been provided and therefore, there is no compliance of the order passed by the writ Court. 4. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has called upon the Opposite Parties, who have filed affidavit by way of show-cause. 5. Mr. 4. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has called upon the Opposite Parties, who have filed affidavit by way of show-cause. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Railway by placing reliance upon the affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Parties, has submitted that however, there was an order passed by the authority, as contained under Annexure 3 to the contempt petition dated 12.02.2019 but subsequent to the same order dated 02.12.2019 has been passed, which has been annexed as Annexure A to the show-cause filed by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi and by taking conscious consideration as also on admission on the part of the petitioner about the occupation of the quarter since the year 2000, demand of amount of Rs. 10,35,453/- has been made to the petitioner out of which Rs. 10,24,801/- has been recovered on retirement, as Rs. 10,692/- was already deducted from the salary of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that since there is admission on the part of the petitioner about the unauthorized occupation of the quarter since the year 2000, therefore, the order of recovery with penal rent to the tune of Rs. 10,35,453/- has been passed and as such it is incorrect to say, as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that without providing opportunity of hearing decision has been taken by the authority in terms of the order passed by the writ Court. 6. In response to the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by bringing to the notice of memorandum of charge in contemplation of departmental proceeding, which was initiated on the charge of unauthorized occupation of quarter by the petitioner since the month of October, 2012, in which, punishment of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect has been passed, as such now it is not available to the Opposite parties to count the period of unauthorized occupation since 2000 by altering the charge, wherein unauthorized occupation of the quarter has been counted from October, 2012. According to him, the authority while doing so has committed gross illegality by imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 10,35,453/-. So far as question of admission is concerned, it has seriously been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. According to him, the authority while doing so has committed gross illegality by imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 10,35,453/-. So far as question of admission is concerned, it has seriously been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of order passed by the writ Court in pursuance thereto the decision has been taken by the authorities on 03.04.2013 wherein the period of unauthorized occupation has been shifted from 01.01.2000 to October, 2012. According to this Court, since it is the matter pertaining to proceeding for disobedience of order passed by the writ Court, if it is found that there is wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by the Court by the authority concerned, and that circumstance only the proceeding is to be initiated against the authorities under the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Admittedly, this Court has directed for passing of order after providing opportunity of hearing. According to the petitioner the said order is without providing opportunity of hearing. This Court is of the view that since the authority has passed order on consideration of various factual aspects, as such it will not be appropriate to look into the legality and propriety of order under contempt jurisdiction. 8. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out. 9. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. 10. However, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate forum and competent Court of law for assailing the order passed by the respondents-authorities. 11. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of.