Jharkhand High Court
Tripurari Sharan Alias T. Sharan vs Shri Anil Kumar Chaudhary on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Cvl.) No.73 of 2020
Tripurari Sharan alias T. Sharan, aged about 70 years, s/o Late Satya
Narayan Prasad Verma, presently residing at Tel Mill Gali, Piska More, Ratu
Road, Post-Hehal, PS-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Anil Kumar Chaudhary, s/o not known to the petitioner, presently
posted as the Chairman of M/s Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi
officiating from Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Post-Lodhi Road,
PS-Lodhi Road, District-New Delhi
2. Shri Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava, s/o not known to the petitioner,
presently posted as the Managing Director (now known by the designation
Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, officiating from Ispat Bhawan
(Administration Building), SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Post-Bokaro Steel
City, PS-B.S. City, District-Bokaro
3. Shri Lalu Joseph, s/o not known to the petitioner, presently posted as the
Deputy General Manager (now known by the designation General Manager,
Spare Parts Cell/Electrical), Bokaro Steel Plant, officiating from Executive
Director Works Building, 4th Floor, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, Post-Bokaro
Steel City, PS-B.S City, District-Bokaro
4. The State of Jharkhand .... ... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the SAIL : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Divya, AC to SC-III
---------
Order No. 02 /Dated: 14th October 2022
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
2. Alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 12th March
2019 passed in L.P.A No.546 of 2017, the present contempt petition has
been filed.
3. In the order dated 12th March 2019, this Court has held as
under:
"21. Not only the disciplinary authority has not considered the
stand taken by the appellant in his second show-cause reply, the
appellate authority has erroneously recorded that the delinquent
employee has admitted that he was living with Anju Sinha as
husband and wife for the last 20 years and Miss Gargi Sharan is
his daughter. A bare reading of the enquiry report dated
20.06.2005 would reveal that the delinquent employee has not
examined himself as a witness in the departmental proceeding and
2 Contempt Case (Cvl) No.73 of 2020
that precisely is the reason there is no reference of his evidence
recorded by the enquiring officer in the enquiry report. In the
aforesaid state of affairs, in our opinion, the charge of bigamy,
that is, without permission of the department marriage with
another woman while the first wife is alive, is not proved. Mere
ipsi dixit of the enquiry officer is not sufficient to hold a delinquent
employee guilty of the charge framed against him proved. The
penalty order dated 16.08.2005 is cryptic and it reveals that the
disciplinary authority has mechanically accepted the enquiry
report and passed the order of dismissal from service.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, finding
serious infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2017
passed in W.P.(S) No.7204 of 2006, it is set-aside and the
punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 16.08.2005
and the appellate order dated 09.08.2006 are quashed.
23. Since the appellant has superannuated from service with effect
from 31.03.2009, he cannot be reinstated in service, however, he
shall be paid all his post-retiral benefits, in accordance with law.
24. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, but without costs."
4. By the aforesaid order dated 12th March 2019, the order of
dismissal from service of the applicant was set aside and M/s Steel
Authority of India Limited was directed to pay post-retiral benefits to
Tripurari Sharan who was the appellant before this Court in L.P.A No.546 of
2017.
5. A show-cause reply has been filed on behalf of the
contemnor(s) to bring on record a copy of the orders dated 16 th December
2019, dated 4th January 2020 and other documents to show that the
post-retiral benefits payable to the applicant have since been paid to him.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the order passed
by the Letters Patent Court has been substantially complied by the proposed
contemnors.
7. Accordingly, Contempt Case (Cvl.) No.73 of 2020 is disposed
of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sudhir
