This contempt of court case is filed alleging disobeyance and violation of the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment. This court in Annexure-A1 judgment had quashed Ext.P2 proceedings directing deduction of a sum of Rs.1,43,750/- out of the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. This court further imposed a time limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment to make payment of the amounts withheld under Ext.P2, unless any fresh decision is taken in accordance with law for recovery of the amount from the terminal benefits due to the petitioner, taking note of the observations contained in the judgment. The observations made by this court are to the effect that unilateral fixation of liability without affording any opportunity to the petitioner is totally illegal. It was further observed that, the question as to whether any amount can be recovered from the officer sanctioning the loans when the organisation could not realise or recover the loan amounts from the loanee for one or another reason, has to be considered. Liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents to take any fresh decision with respect to the recovery, if it is sustainable under law and under the provisions governing service conditions, subject to adherence of all procedures and principles of natural justice.
2. It is alleged that the respondent had failed to comply with the direction within the time limit stipulated in Annexure-A1 judgment, but later issued Annexure-A5 proceedings again ordering withholding of an amount of Rs.1,43,750/- until finalisation of dispute pending related to a special car loan sanctioned by the petitioner as 'Unit Head' at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a decision taken by the respondent is totally violative of the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment and it is issued contrary to the observations and directions made in the judgment.
3. In a counter affidavit of the respondents it is mentioned that the judgment was received by the respondent on 01-11-2013 and thereafter a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 13-12-2013. Copy of the minutes of the hearing conducted on that day is produced as Annexure-R1 (A). It is mentioned that the hearing was conducted before 45 days of receipt of the judgment. But it is admitted that the decision was taken on 20-02-2014. According to respondent the allegation regarding delay in taking the decision was deliberate and wilful, is not correct. It is mentioned that the matter was deliberated upon and it was after taking into account of all the aspects of the matter that a decision was arrived. It is expressed that the delay in communicating the decision is regretted and may be condoned.
4. It is to be noticed that the ultimate direction issued by this court in Annexure-A1 judgment is to make payment of the amounts withheld within 2 months, unless any fresh decision is taken for recovery of the amounts, in accordance with law, taking note of the observations contained in the judgment. By virtue of Annexure-A5 the respondent had taken a decision to withhold the amount from the terminal benefits until finalisation of a dispute pending with respect to recovery of the loan in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised vehement contentions to the effect that such a decision is totally contrary to the observations contained in the judgment and it is against the findings based on which Ext.P5 was already quashed. But question remains as to whether any illegality or error or irregularity with respect to the order passed (Annexure-A5) can be considered in this contempt of court case. This court is of the opinion that those are matters which need to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. The non-consideration of observations contained in the judgment in it proper spirit and perspective may be due to many reasons like lack of understanding, lack of legal acumen or lack of knowledge in law etc. Even if this court is satisfied prima facie that those observations are not taken note of in its true spirit and perspective, the respondent cannot be blamed with the guilt of contempt for that aspect alone.
5. It is true that Annexure-A5 order was not issued within the outer limit of the time limit stipulated. But the respondent had stated the reason for the delay as the matter was under deliberations and considerations on the basis of the hearing conducted. This court do not feel that this is an appropriate case where further proceedings in the contempt of court case need to be pursued, solely on the basis of delay caused in compliance of the judgment.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no further steps in this contempt of court case is warranted. However, as already observed in Annexure-A1 judgment, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the decision taken on all available grounds in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge