Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6541 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rabindra Kumar Respondent :- State Bank Of India, Gorakhpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was proceeded with departmentally by his employer which resulted in passing of an order of dismissal from service. The order of punishment was also affirmed in appeal. Both the orders were challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.48511 of 2016. The writ petition has been allowed by this Court on 24.4.2018 and both the orders of punishment have been set aside. It appears that authorities of the Bank did not comply with the order and consequently contempt proceedings were initiated by the petitioner in which notices were issued to the opposite parties. The order passed in contempt petition has been challenged by the concerned officers of the Bank in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2019, which has been disposed of vide following observations:-
"However, the purpose of civil contempt is to enforce the order of the Court. The counsel for the appellant expressed his willingness to pay arrears of salary along with simple interest at the rate of Bank.
In the circumstances, this appeal as well as Contempt Application (Civil) No.3685 of 2018 are disposed of with the direction that the appellant shall pay the entire arrears of salary of Rabindra Kumar from the date of allowing of the writ petition i.e. 24.4.2018 till 30.8.2018 along with simple interest at Bank rate for delayed payment, within a period of thirty days from today."
This petition has now been filed with the grievance that in terms of the order passed by the writ court the petitioner is also entitled to salary from the date of passing of order of dismissal till the date petitioner's writ petition was allowed. It is also submitted that contempt appeal was confined to the proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, and therefore, this Court would have the jurisdiction to proceed notwithstanding the orders passed in contempt appeal.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief once the contempt appeal has been disposed of determining the entitlement of petitioner to receive arrears of salary from the date of passing of the order by this Court on 24.4.2018 till 30.8.2018 with simple interest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered view that once the order of punishment has been quashed by this Court, all consequences would ordinarily flow for the petitioner as a result of such order. However, what transpires on record is that a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner raising such grievance and the matter has been taken up by the Division Bench while exercising appellate jurisdiction under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Division Bench has disposed of the contempt appeal as also the contempt application by crystallizing the right of the petitioner to the benefit flowing from the order of the writ court and the actual relief has been restricted to payment of salary from the date of order of writ court i.e. 24.4.2018 to 30.8.2018 when he actually reinstated. Once the Division Bench has examined entitlement of the petitioner and crystallized the relief to be granted to the petitioner, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to seek modification in the order passed by the contempt appellate bench and a fresh petition in respect of the cause which was already available on the date of filing of contempt petition and at the time of disposal of contempt appeal would not be entertained. Though various arguments have been advanced to submit that notwithstanding the disposal of contempt appeal this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's grievance, but proprietary would demand this Court not to pass an order in respect of same cause. The cause which is being raised by filing the writ petition was available to the petitioner when he filed contempt petition. Once the entitlement of petitioner has been adjudicated and determined by the Division Bench, in contempt appeal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interpret the entitlement all over and again.
Leaving it open for the petitioner to seek appropriate clarification/modification in the contempt appeal, this petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ashok Kr.