Delhi High Court
Rajkumar vs Union Of India And Others on 9 December, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13747/2009
% Date of Decision: 09.12.2009
Rajkumar .... Petitioner
Through Mr.C.L. Nagar, Advocate
Versus
Union of India and others .... Respondents
Through Mr.B.V. Niren, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the
order dated 13th November, 2009 in MA No.2174 of 2009 in OA
No.1959/2009 and C.P. NO.504/2009 whereby the contempt
proceedings were dropped against the respondents and the notices were
discharged.
The petitioner had filed an original application under Section 19
of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was disposed off vide order
dated 27th July, 2009. The petitioner was expected to submit his reply
to the disagreement note and the respondents were directed to dispose
of the representation and pass the final orders within two months.
The disciplinary proceedings could not be completed by the
respondents within prescribed time and consequently a contempt
petition being C.P. No.504 of 2009 in OA No.1959 of 2009 was filed by
the petitioner in which notice was issued to the respondents. It appears
that at one stage it was stated by the respondents that de novo enquiry
proceedings would be initiated. However, it was clarified that further
enquiry is required to be held. The respondents sought further six
months time to complete the enquiry.
The Tribunal on 29th April, 2009, however granted four months
time more to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner. The Tribunal also dismissed the contempt
petition discharged the notice issued in the contempt petition.
The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal primarily
on the ground that the respondents ought to have finished the
disciplinary proceedings within two months, within the time granted by
the Tribunal by order dated 27th July, 2009.
The Tribunal had granted time to the respondents to complete the
disciplinary proceedings within two months and consequently the
Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction and power to extend the time to
complete the disciplinary proceedings. In the facts and circumstances,
the order of Tribunal granting more time to the respondents to complete
the disciplinary proceedings does not suffer from such error of illegality
which is to be corrected by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The respondents had shown sufficient reason for not completing
the disciplinary proceedings within two months and, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances it cannot be held that there is an element of
deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents in not concluding the
disciplinary proceedings. Exercise of power under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 is comparatively a rarity and is to be used sparingly in
the larger interest of society and for administration of justice and not
under the circumstances as has been alleged by the petitioner.
Jurisdiction under the contempt of courts is to be exercised with great
care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper
administration of law and justice.
In the circumstances, dropping the contempt proceedings by the
Tribunal cannot be termed as erroneous or that the order suffers from
such illegality which shall require interference by this Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 09, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J.
'Dev'
