Sunderlal Maurya vs Pradeep Singh Khairola Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12363 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 21                                                                                                Reserved
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1293 of 2021 
 
Applicant :- Sunderlal Maurya 
 
Opposite Party :- Pradeep Singh Khairola Secy. Aviation Safdarjang New Delhi 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person 
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 

1. Heard Mr. Sunderlal Maurya, applicant in person.

2. The present contempt petition is filed with the averments that the order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 of 2003 is being disobedience wilfull and order of Writ Court dated 23.12.2016 is also not being complied with.

3. It is evident from the record that Writ Petition No.2226 (S/S) of 2003 was filed by the applicant, which was allowed on 23.12.2016, thereafter, Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 was preferred by Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Udan Akademi against judgement and order dated 23.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2226 (S/S )of 2003 and the same was allowed by Division Bench of this Court on 13.09.2017 by setting aside the order of Writ Court, dated 23.12.2016 and matter was remanded to Central Administrative Trinubal as per the statutory remedy.

4. It is also evident from the record that Review Application No.87412 of 2018 was filed by the applicant in the aforesaid Special Appeal, which was also dismissed on 24.04.2019. It is also evident from the record that one application i.e. C.M. Appliation No.66107 of 32019, dated 23.05.2019 under Section 215 of Constitution of India was filed by the applicant in the aforesaid decided Special Appeal, which was dismissed on 25.11.2021. Order passed on application under Article 215 Constitution of India in the aforesaid Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 reads as under:-

" On Application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India

1. Heard Sri Sundar Lal Maurya, applicant in person and Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties.

2. The applicant-petitioner is a chronic litigant before this Court.

3. The applicant-petitioner was appointed as Auto Helper in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy, Fursatganj, Raebareli ( for short ?the Academy?) on 31.5.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. He was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 11.6.1992 w.e.f. 10.6.1992. The applicant-petitioner was promoted vide order dated 2.9.1994 as Tractor Driver in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-. The applicant-petitioner felt that similarly placed other Drivers were promoted to the post of Driver prior to him on completion of 3 or 4 years of service and, thereafter, they were further promoted to the post of Driver Group-B in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-, he filed Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 claiming promotion on the post of Driver and, thereafter, to the post of Driver Group-B. Vide interim order dated 18.10.2000, this Court directed that in case the work of Driver was being taken from the petitioner, he should be paid salary as Driver, subject to further orders. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, which have been challenged by the applicant-petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003.

4. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 allowed Writ Petition No.2226 (SS) of 2003 and disposed of Writ Petition No.5782 (SS) of 2000 and directed that if as a consequence of reinstatement of the petitioner he was entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, his case should be considered for the same in accordance with Rules.

5. The Academy filed Special Appeal No.10 of 2017 against the said judgement and order passed by the a coordinate Bench of this Court. Air Marshal, Vinod Kumar Verma of the Academy claimed to be posted as Director of the Academy, sworned the affidavit in support of the special appeal.

6. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 allowed the special appeal and set aside the judgement and order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Academy is mentioned in the notification dated 22.4.2008 issued under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear such matters, had been excluded and in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, once such a notification was issued on 22.4.2008 in respect of the Academy, the matter ought to have been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Division Bench transferred both the writ petitions along with records to the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that the Tribunal to proceed and decide the same in accordance with law. All ancillary proceedings pending for consideration before this Court in both the writ petitions, were also transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court directed the Tribunal to make an endeavour to dispose of both the cases expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record.

7. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed an application being C.M. Application No.106571 of 2017 for recall of the order dated 13.9.2017 passed in Special Appeal No.10 of 2017. This Court rejected the said application vide order dated 23.7.2018.

8. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, filed review application being C.M. Application No.87412 of 2018 seeking review of the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017 and, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.4.2019 rejected the said review application. The Division Bench held that the recall application was nothing but an attempt to review the judgement and order dated 13.9.2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2018. It was said the second review application would not be maintainable and even otherwise, there was no merit in the review application.

9. The applicant-petitioner, thereafter, has filed the present application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Contempt of Court Act, 1971 being C.M. Application No.66107 of 2019 alleging that Vinod Kumar Verma, who had filed the affidavit in support of the special appeal as Director of the Academy, was never appointed as Director and he had filed a false affidavit with the special appeal. The applicant-petitioner has also filed several other applications.

10. Notice was issued on this application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Academy, in which it has been clearly indicated that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma had been appointed as Director of the Academy vide order dated 22.7.2009. Copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit. An averment has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that tenure of Vinod Kumar Verma was completed on 31.3.2018 and, thereafter, Sri Nalin Tandon was appointed as Director of the Academy.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the counter affidavit filed in the present application, allegation levelled by the applicant-petitioner that Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was not the Director of the Academy on the date of filing of the affidavit in the special appeal, is not correct. Sri Vinod Kumar Verma was appointed as Director vide order dated 22.7.2009 and his term got expired on 31.3.2018. Therefore, the affidavit filed by Sri Vinod Kumar Verma in support of the special appeal, can not be said to be a false affidavit.

12. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground to initiate the contempt proceedings against Sri Vinod Kumar Verma.

13. Application is wholly misconceived, which is hereby rejected. "

5. It is evident from the Annexure-1 of the present contempt petition that two Misc. Applications i.e. Civil Misc. Application Nos.82666 of 2013 and 98691 of 2015 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were decided by rejecting the same, vide order dated 03.07.2017. The order dated 03.07.2017 has annexed as Annexure-1 with the contempt petition reads as under:-

"Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013

Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002, both filed by the petitioner, was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-

"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.

Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.

Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."

In terms of the directions so issued, the application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been registered as Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 and is listed today before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter.

I have heard petitioner in person and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey for the respondents.

The application under section 340 Cr.P.C. proceeds on the grounds set out in para 2 to 5 of the affidavit, which are extracted hereinafter:-

"2. That it so happened that when the Hon'ble Court [presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma] after a brief hearing Sri R.P. Shukla Advocate the then learned counsel for the petitioner the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order, Mr. Deepak Seth Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties appeared and made statement as per instruction received:-

"Mr. Deepak Seth submits that Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi has been purchased by a Canadian Company and as such he may be allowed a weeks' time to file affidavit in this regard. Three days time is allowed to the petitioner to file objection, if any. List thereafter. It shall not be treated as tied up to this Bench."

3. That later on, it was revealed and now it is evident from the letter dated 2.8.2010 [Annexure No.SA-1] to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.4.2013 sent by Manager addressed to petitioner through registered post bearing letter No. IGRAU:HR:PF: 10:471 in para 18 reads as under:-

"18& vKkuo'k vdkneh ds vf/kd`r vf/koDrk Jh nhid lsB us tks xyr c;ku U;k;ky; esa fn;k Fkk mlds fy;s mudks rRdky izHkko ls gVkdj Jh vks0ih0 JhokLro dks mudh txg fu;qDr fd;k x;kA "

4. That from the above spectrum of facts it emerges out that vicious deceit was played by opposite parties for lingering the matter in issue because after hearing at some length Sri R.P. Mishra the then learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was likely to pass some order. The aforesaid interruption was deliberately made in order to mislead the Hon'ble High Court which calls for action willful and deliberate, false statement before Hon'ble High Court is a matter of serious concern. It is culpable and contemptuous.

5. That the result and effect of the aforesaid false statement was that the matter was adjourned and now it is crystal clear that Uran Academy was not purchased by the Canadian Company, such a misleading and false statement was uncalled for, unexpected and malingers the dignity of the Hon'ble High Court. On account of the aforesaid irresponsible and false statement the Hon'ble Court was interrupted from passing any order which has resulted into miscarriage into justice."

Petitioner submits that a false statement was made before this Court that the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy has been purchased by a Canadian company, and therefore, time was sought from the court on a false pretext. It is averred that for such reasons the respondents are liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C.

In the counter affidavit filed the respondents have brought on record an agreement entered into between CEA Aviation Training, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy on 7.2.2008. The first and last page of this agreement has been brought on record which shows entering into an agreement between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and CEA Aviation Training. Respondents have further stated as under in para 5 of the affidavit:-

"5. That it appears that in pursuance of the management contract with a Canadian Company namely CAE Aviation Training B.V., Canada dated 7.2.2008 the entire management including the powers to make changes in employee Service Rules and Regulations, change of Payscales, Conduct and Discipline was transferred to the aforesaid Canadian Company and thereby the Canadian Company become competent to deal all such matters and this information was given to the learned standing counsel to seek adjournment so that the complete facts may be brought on record before this Hon'ble Court. It further appears that while seeking adjournment to bring the aforesaid facts on record the facts were taken as purchasing by the Canadian Company under some confusion. There was no wrong information given by the counsel of the Akademi and there was no intention behind it. This statement did not infringe any legal right of the petitioner and the Akademi did not get any benefit out of it. A true copy of the agreement entered between the Academy and CAE Aviation Training B.V dated 7.2.2008 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.C-1 to this counter affidavit/objection."

It is stated that counsel was apprised of subsequent developments in the matter so as to bring such materials on record and that the statement made by the counsel that academy has been purchased although was not entirely correct as merely management has been taken over but for such reasons proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be initiated.

Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008 merely records statement of counsel so as to enable him file an affidavit bringing on record such facts. The records do reflect that an agreement was entered into between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and Canadian company for taking over management. Even if the factum disclosed before the court that the academy has been purchased is incorrect, yet, in my opinion it would not give rise to a cause to initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has merely made a statement so as to enable him to file an affidavit before the court in that regard. There is nothing on record to show that any false statement was made on affidavit before the court. It is possible that there may have been lack of communication and inadvertent omission with regard to taking over of management was construed as purchase of academy, but that seems unintentional in the facts and circumstances. Necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.

Application is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 3.7.2017

Ashok Kr.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Ref:- Civil Misc. Application No.98691 of 2015

Writ Petition Nos.2226 of 2003 and 5782 of 2002 both filed by the petitioner was heard together and was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2016 by this Court. Operative portion of the order reads as under:-

"In view of the above, there is no need to consider the merits of the charges alleged against the petitioner. The orders impugned in Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 are hereby quashed.

Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date of passing of the order of his removal from service. Considering the long lapse of 16 years, the Court does not find it a fit case for granting liberty to the opposite parties to hold an inquiry afresh, specially as, the petitioner has already suffered a lot by being out of service. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that he was not gainfully employed while he was out of service, but, then again considering the fact that the proceedings are void-ab-initio and the fact that the petitioner has been kept out of service on the basis of proceedings initiated against him which were a nullity in the eyes of law since inception, his reinstatement will be with only 50% back wages, however, current salary shall be fixed after treating the petitioner in continuous service from the date of passing of the removal order. Consequential service benefits shall follow accordingly as per law.

Writ Petition No. 2226(S/S) of 2003 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

As regards Writ Petition No. 5782(S/S) of 2000 filed by him claiming promotion, is concerned, considering the assertion of the opposite parties that there were no vacancies at the relevant time, the claim raised therein as regards promotion with effect from date of promotion of others to the post of driver need not be considered at this belated stage, specially as, he was promoted as Tractor Driver carrying the same pay-scale as that of Driver, however, if, as a consequence of his reinstatement he is entitled to be considered for promotion or adjustment as Driver and thereafter, for further promotions, if any, he shall be considered for the same in accordance with Rules. The said writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."

Petitioner states that he was wrongly terminated and respondents have filed false affidavit before this Court. Various paragraph of the affidavit states that this Court had called for an affidavit from the respondents on the aspect as to whether post of administrative officer was sanctioned and whether appropriate delegation of power existed in favour of the authorities. The petitioner, who appears in person, states that since incorrect affidavits were filed and that respondent D.K. Mahesh was illegally promoted, all such affidavits filed by them in this petition are liable to be discarded from consideration in the matter. 

Perusal of the record goes to show that grievance of the petitioner has been considered on merits and appropriate relief as was found desirable under the facts and circumstances has already been granted to the petitioner. The question as to whether deponent swearing the counter affidavit had been promoted legally or illegally was not the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition. Grievance of the petitioner is once examined on merits, I am not inclined to entertain this application or to proceed further under section 340 Cr.P.C.

Application is accordingly consigned to records."

6. Considering the overall submissions of the applicant and going through the pleadings of contempt petition as well as record of Special Appeal No.10 of 2017, it is found that on 03.07.2017, two Misc. Applications i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013, Civl Misc. Application No.98691 of 2015, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Civil Misc. Application No.66107 of 2019, under Section 215 of Constitution of India were dismissed. It is also found that order of Writ Court has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid Special Appeal. Therefore, no contempt is made out.

7. Accordingly, the contempt petition is misconceived and dismissed.

Order Date :- 09.09.2022

Amit/-