Allahabad High Court
Hashmi Ikram vs Shri V.K. Tripathi D.R.M. North ... on 19 December, 2022
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5927 of 2015
Applicant :- Hashmi Ikram
Opposite Party :- Shri V.K. Tripathi D.R.M. North Central Railway Alld. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishan Ji Khare,Mritunjay Khare
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prashant Mathur,Vikram Shah Sisodia
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the matter is listed, peremptorily.
List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of applicant though Shri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite party is present.
The present contempt application has been filed by the applicant for non-compliance of the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Writ A No. 52260 of 2004. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the legal representatives who have been substituted in place of the deceased petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Briefly stated the deceased petitioner Shri A.A. Shakeel was an Assistant Station Master (ASM) in the Railways. A chargesheet dated 26.12.1991 was issued to him for his absence from duty. Disciplinary inquiry conducted against him in which the Enquiry officer vide his report dated 28.11.1994 held him guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry report and the representations submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 23.2.1995 imposed upon him penalty of removal from service. Aggrieved, the deceased petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 26.5.1995. A revision preferred against the appellate order too was dismissed on 12.2.1996. The petitioner then preferred O.A. 860/96 which was partly allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 5.2.2003 thereby quashing the appellate and revisional order and remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned order in the light of observations made by it.
The Appellate Authority by his order dated 3.7.2003 although maintained the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, but, taking a lenient view on the punishment awarded to the petitioner reduced his punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, thereafter, again preferred an O.A. as O.A. No. 1074 of 2003 before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2004. Aggrieved he preferred the present writ petition inter alia praying to get the said order dated 3.8.2004 quashed and also for his reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The petitioner died during litigation.
Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the petitioner (since deceased) submits that the tribunal has failed to consider that charges of unauthorised absence of the petitioner from his duty had not been proved and the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
A perusal of the impugned judgment and order clearly indicates that the tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that petitioner was on leave from 28.9.1990 to 2.10.1990 and, thereafter, he had absented himself from duty. A finding has been recorded by the tribunal that total period of his absence concededly was more than 90 days and that the petitioner was required to present himself for fitness to Railway Hospital Authority for examination yet inspite of repeated opportunities given to him through medical memo No. 011 dated 27.12.1993 and medical memo no. 018 dated 24.2.1994, the petitioner failed to report for medical examination which was held to be a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner(since deceased).
It has not been disputed that petitioner remained unauthrisedly absent from his duty for more than 90 days and that he had been provided repeated opportunities to present himself for special medical examination. Despite the same he had failed to appear before the Railway Hospital Authorities without any plausible explanation which undoubtedly was a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner(since deceased). In the aforesaid circumstances we find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal and the lenient view already taken by the Tribunal imposing upon him punishment of compulsory retirement which in our considered opinion is not at all disproportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct committed by him.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the legal representatives of the petitioner that they may move an application before authority concerned for payment of retiral and other dues of the petitioner (if admissible) in accordance with law, which shall be decided within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs."
By the aforesaid order, a direction was given by this Court to the legal representative of the petitioner to move an application before the authorities concerned for payment of retiral and other dues of the petitioner (if admissible) in accordance with law.
An affidavit of compliance has been filed by Shri Prashant Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2. In paragraph-13 of the aforesaid affidavit it is stated that pursuant to the order passed by Writ Court, a decision has already been taken by the concerned competent authority on 24.11.2015, copy of which is appended as Annexure-3 to the compliance affidavit. It is further argued that on the basis of the aforesaid letter/order that post retiremental benefits were also released to the legal heirs of the deceased, hence the present contempt petition has now become infructuous.
It reveals from perusal of the record that though the aforesaid order was passed on 24.11.2015 but till date no reply is given to the same.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022
Swati
