Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O Shri Warluji Uikey vs Shri Shyam Tagade, Principal ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 48.cp.295.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 295 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5900 OF 2015
Madhukar S/o. Shri Warluji Uikey
.vs.
Shri Shyam Tagade and ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr A. S. Fulzele, AGP for the respondent No.1
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATED : 04.07.2022
Respondent No.3- Sidharth Gaikwad, the
Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur and respondent
No. 4 Babasaheb Deshmukh, the Assistant Commissioner,
Nagpur are personally present before the Court.
2] Shri A. S. Fulzele, learned AGP on their behalf
submits that the Judgment and Order of this Court dated
19.12.2018 has now been complied with fully. In support, he
tenders before the Court, the order dated 24.06.2022. It is
taken on record and marked "A" for identification. He also
submits that respondent No.3, by filing affidavit, has
tendered unconditional apology to this Court.
3] We have gone through the affidavit of respondent
2 48.cp.295.2021.odt
No.3. We are satisfied that his absence before the Court was
not willful and he really wanted to attend this Court. It
appears to us that on that day he perhaps misjudged the
priorities, which one is supposed to give in the matter. But,
for that, we need not reject the affidavit. We, therefore,
accept the affidavit and also the apology tendered by him,
unconditionally.
4] As regards the order dated 24.06.2022, it is seen
that, now it fully complies with the Judgment and Order
dated 19.12.2018, although belatedly.
5] Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, asserts that the respondent No. 4 was not allowed
by this Court to deduct amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, already
deposited with this Court, from the payment of arrears of
salary of the petitioner and therefore, respondent No. 4
seems to have committed the contempt of this Court.
6] Though the delay occurred in the present case, we
are of the view that the delay was primarily on the part of
the State Government, which took its own time for releasing
the requisite funds and therefore, for this purpose none of
the respondents could be held responsible. As submitted by
the learned AGP, this is also not the case wherein
respondent No. 4 has taken his own time in sending the
proposal to the State Government. Of course the proposal
was sent in November 2019, but there is an explanation for
3 48.cp.295.2021.odt
the delay caused in sending of the proposal. This
explanation now orally submitted by respondent No. 3 and
submitted before this Court by the learned AGP upon his
verification for the same, shows that initially the
Department was thinking of approaching the Apex Court to
challenge the Judgment and Order of this Court, but later
on, as the permission to file Special Leave Petition was not
granted by the State Government, the Department decided
to comply with the order and this is how the delay has been
explained. We find the explanation to be reasonable and
therefore, it is accepted.
7] Now, what remains is the absence of authority
given to the respondent No. 4 for deducting the amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the final bill of arrears of salary and
about this we must say that in Judgment and Order in
question, such authority was never given to respondent No.
4 and therefore, before deducting the said amount from the
bill of arrears of salary, respondent No. 4 ought to have
taken prior permission of this Court, especially when the
petitioner had not withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
deposited by respondents in this Court and this fact is within
the knowledge of respondent No. 4. Yet, respondent No. 4
has acted in a manner which virtually borders upon breach
of some of the directions issued by this Court.
8] Shri Fulzele, the learned Addl. G.P. appearing for
respondent No. 4 submits that respondent No.4 ought not to
4 48.cp.295.2021.odt
have adjusted the said amount from the final bill, but he
further submits that the respondent No. 4 would not repeat
this mistake in future.
9] Considering the fact that the mistake committed
by respondent No. 4 may not have been intentional and may
have been committed due to lack of proper understanding of
the tenor and effect of judgment and order in question, we
are willing to accept the explanation submitted on his behalf
by the learned Addl. G.P. and it is accepted accordingly. Of
course, in future he must not repeat such mistakes and he
must act in such matters after seeking appropriate legal
advice.
10] In view of above, we find that nothing
remains in this contempt petition. The contempt action
initiated against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is therefore
dropped. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are discharged from this
proceeding.
11] Leave to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-, together with
accrued interest, if any, already deposited with this Court by
the State is granted to the petitioner.
The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
5 48.cp.295.2021.odt
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:06.07.2022 16:22
