Allahabad High Court
Shesh Mani Tripathi vs Shri Yogendra Prasad Rai, Chief ... on 25 July, 2017
Bench: Rakesh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
? A.F.R
Court No. - 8
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 1414 of 2017
Applicant :- Shesh Mani Tripathi
Opposite Party :- Shri Yogendra Prasad Rai, Chief Postmaster General U.P. Circ
Counsel for Applicant :- Paltoo Ram Gupta
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Paltoo Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
On 19.01.2005 the Original Application No. 398 of 1997 (Shesh Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.) was partly allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Lucknow. The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits but without any back wages. The operative portion of the order dated 19.01.2005 is being quoted below:
"Accordingly the O.A. is partly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to forth with reinstate applicant in service with all consequential benefits but without any back wages. No costs."
The order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the Tribunal, was assailed by the respondent no. 1 to the Original Application, before this Court in Writ Petition No. 893 (S/B) of 2005 (Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Ors. v. Shesh Mani Tripathi & Anr.). On 29.03.2017 the said writ petition was dismissed. The operative portion of the order dated 29.03.2017 is being quoted below:
"6. A bare reading thereof shows that defence taken by petitioner has not been considered and in a mechanical matter reiterating the finding in disagreement note, dismissal order has been passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that order of punishment is a speaking order, particularly when it has been passed by Disciplinary Authority after disagreeing with the finding of Enquiry Officer and giving opportunity to delinquent employee to submit his representation against the independent finding recorded by Disciplinary Authority of disagreement. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order passed by Tribunal warranting interference.
7. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. "
This contempt petition has been filed for initiating action against the respondents for deliberate disobedience of the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 893 (S/B) of 2005 (Union of India v. Shesh Mani Tripathi & Anr.). By means of the order dated 29.03.2017, the Writ Petition preferred by the Union of India, was dismissed without substituting, altering or modifying the order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and as such, prima facie, no contempt of the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Court is made out.
Under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short 'Act') the Central Tribunal has and exercises, jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as the High Court has, and may exercise, in respect of contempt of itself, and for this purpose the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 mutatis mutandis, apply.
The applicant has an efficacious remedy of moving an application under Section 17 of the Act for initiating action against the respondent for deliberate disobedience of judgment and order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the Tribunal.
In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to avail remedy available to him under Section 17 of the Act.
Order Date :- 25.7.2017
Deepak
