Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3717 of 2019 Applicant :- Shioji Prasad Opposite Party :- S.K. Jha, Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akanksha Gaur Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is before this Court against the wilful defiance of the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.24188 of 2013 (Shioji Prasad v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-
"Heard Ms. Akansha Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Pankaj Lal holding brief of Sri Vivek Singh for the respondents.
There is a consensus between both the counsel that three persons including the petitioner were chargesheeted and later dismissed from service. The charges were identical. All of them filed original application before Central Administrative Tribunal out of which two original applications filed by Sri Om Prakash Pandey and Ramesh Prasad were allowed by the tribunal. The matter was remitted back for de-novo enquiry which was never done by the department.
Union of India filed writ petition No.20809 of 2013 against the order passed in original applications filed by Ramesh Prasad. Identical petition was filed by Union of India against Om Prakash Pandey also. Both these petitions filed by Union of India were dismissed and the order of tribunal was upheld. In the present case, unfortunately, the original application filed by the petitioner could not be connected with other two applications and was dismissed by the tribunal.
The present petitioner has come up against the order of the tribunal mainly on the ground that inquiry was not conducted properly and opportunity of hearing was not sufficiently allowed to the petitioner. The inquiry officer was from the vigilance department and he could not have been entrusted with the inquiry as per law. The main ground for dismissing the writ petition filed by the Union of India by this Court is to the effect that the Division Bench has held that inquiry officer belonged to the Vigilance Department and that the entire proceedings against the respondent had been initiated as a result of a raid conducted against him and, therefore, appointment of an officer from the Vigilance Department as inquiry officer vitiated the entire enquiry and the element of bias could not be ruled out. In such a situation, the inquiry held against the respondent could not be said to be free and fair or impartial. The findings of the Division Bench in identical matters are applicable to the case of the present petitioner as well.
We accordingly allow this petition. The impugned orders dated 21.11.2012, 1.6.2012 passed by the tribunal and also the orders dated 8.6.2010, 14.12.2009 and 6.2.2009 passed by respondent department are set aside. The consequences to follow.
It is observed that the petitioner shall be treated similar to the case of other two persons, namely, Om Prakash Pandey and Ramesh Prasad for the purpose of consequential benefits."
Learned counsel for the applicant states that in response to the aforesaid order the cognizance has been taken by the opposite parties and the matter has already been referred to the higher authority but no final decision has been taken as yet and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self- addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 SP/