Mangilal Rathore vs Shri C.H. Srinivas
2023 Latest Caselaw 6355 MP

                                    --1--


IN THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT I N D O R E
                               BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                   &
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

                   ON THE 20th OF APRIL, 2023

         CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1041 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
KAILASH CHANDRA MEENA S/O SHRI AMARCHAND MEENA, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED HOUSE NO. 263,
SCHEME NO. 74, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                       .....PETITIONER
(SHRI L. C. PATNE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND
   SHRI C.H. SRINIVAS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER RETAIL WEST
   ZONE RETAIL SBU HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. R
1.
   AND C BUILDING 1, 2, 4 AND 5TH FLOOR WEST ZONE OFFICE SIR
   J.H. ROAD BYCULLA MUMBAI 400008 (MAHARASHTRA)
   SHRI RAKESH MISRI S/O . OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR (MARKETING)
2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJI
   TATA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1)

          ------------------------------------------------------

         CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1042 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
                                     --2--


MANGILAL RATHORE S/O SHRI JAITRAM RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED EK-584, SCHEME NO. 54, VIJAY
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....PETITIONER

(SHRI L. C. PATNE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND
   SHRI C.H. SRINIVAS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER RETAIL WEST
   ZONE RETAIL SBU HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. R
1.
   AND C BUILDING 1, 2, 4 AND 5TH FLOOR WEST ZONE OFFICE SIR
   J.H. ROAD BYCULLA MUMBAI 400008 (MAHARASHTRA)
   SHRI RAKESH MISRI OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR (MARKETING)
   HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. , 17, JAMSHEDJI
2.
   TATA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.1)

      These contempt petitions coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:



                                ORDER

The matters are taken up for hearing with the consent of both the parties.

2. The present contempt petitions have been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non-compliance of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in W.A. No.240/2018 and W.A. No.247/2018.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order dated 16.03.2021 has been fully complied with whereas the learned counsel for

--3--

the petitioner submitted that the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the respondents in compliance cannot be termed as full compliance of the order.

4. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in W.A. No.240/2018 and W.A. No.247/2018 has been complied with, the operative portion of the order passed by the writ appellate court reads as under:-

"[35] The ancillary question is whether while rightly setting aside the punishment of dismissal and while remanding the matter for reconsideration, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing reinstatement with back wages. We do not think learned single Judge followed right course. In a matter of this nature where punishment of dismissal is set aside and matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to impose any other punishment (mentioned in para 17 of impugned judgment) the only course open to the learned Single Judge was to observe that the substituted penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority shall take place of punishment of dismissal from due date and all benefits arising out of said substituted punishment will ensue. To this extent, we find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for appellants that learned Single Judge has gone wrong in directing reinstatement with salary, increments and other benefits. These benefits will depend upon the nature of substituted punishments. We find support in our view from (2015) 2 SCC 610 Union of India and Ors. Vs. P.

--4--

Gunasekaran. Para 25 reads thus:-

"25. The last contention is with regard to date of effect of the punishment. According to the respondent, even assuming that compulsory retirement is to be imposed, it could be only with effect from the date of order viz. 28-2- 2000. We are unable to appreciate the contention. The respondent stood dismissed from service as per order dated 10.6.1997. It was that punishment which was directed to be reconsidered. Consequent thereon only, the punishment was altered/substituted to compulsory retirement. Necessarily, it has to be from the date of dismissal from service viz. 10-6-1997."

(emphasis supplied) [36] So far judgment of Apex Court in Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing corporation & another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (1980) 3 SCC 459 is concerned, it will be of no assistance to appellants in view of above findings wherein we have held that substituted punishment will decide the other benefits arising thereto. Hence, this judgment cannot be pressed into service. Even otherwise, in para 18 of this judgment, the Apex Court opined that High Court should not "ordinarily" grant back wages.

[37] Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel during the course of arguments urged that learned Single Judge failed to interfere on the procedural part of enquiry which was bad in law. Suffice it to say that respondents have not assailed the order of learned Single Judge. These aspects cannot be gone into in the writ appeals filed by Corporation.

--5--

[38] In view of the foregoing analysis, the order of learned Single Judge dated 7th December, 2017 to the extent findings of enquiry were held to be perverse, back wages and other consequential benefits were granted to respondents is set aside. The substituted punishment imposed by disciplinary authority shall govern the financial and other benefits to the respondents employees from due date. Rest of the findings given by learned Single Judge are upheld. The Disciplinary Authority shall take final decision regarding punishments within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

[39] The writ appeals are partially allowed to the extent indicated above."

5. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 16.03.2021 the respondents herein have passed the order dated 26.07.2022 modifying the punishment of dismissal to that of punishment of "demotion to a lower grade without reduction in salary". The operative part of the order passed by the respondents' authorities reads as under:-

"Upon going through the Enquiry Officer's Report and documentary & oral evidences available on the record of enquiry, I find that the charges established against Shri Kailash Chandra Meena are of grave and serious nature. Therefore, I hereby impose upon Shri Kailash Chandra Meena a punishment of "Demotion to a lower grade without reduction in salary" as per clause 32(1)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to him at relevant point of time. Accordingly, Shri Kailash Chandra Meena is demoted from Salary Grade 'M11' to 'M08'. I note that at the time of issuance of the impugned

--6--

Disciplinary Authority's Order dated 22/10/2008, Shri Kailash Chandra Meena's basic salary was Rs. 13916/- per month and PP was Rs. 962/- per month. Accordingly upon protecting the aforesaid basic salary, by virtue of the present Disciplinary Authority's Order whereby Shri Kailash Chandra Meena is Demoted to salary grade M08, his basic salary would be Rs. 25000/- per month (as per the prevailing revised Pay Scale) and consequential allowances would be payable reckoning the said basic salary effective the due date, ie. date of his reinstatement into the services as per substituted punishment.

My attention is also drawn to the fact that an FIR No. 1150 dated 22/11/2018, has been lodged against Shri Kailash Chandra Meena u/s. 420 of IPC for illegally procuring and providing fake armed license and arms, for money. In this regard, an article was also published in local Hindi newspaper in Indore "Dainik Bhaskar" under the caption "Agent who arranged arm license from Nagaland for Rs. 1.5 lacs arrested". The Corporation reserves its right to initiate appropriate disciplinary action in the aforesaid matter.

Shri Kailash Chandra Meena is advised to report to Shri A Mohan Kumar, DGM - Projects, to take up his assignment as Administrative Assistant, at VDPL, Dharmapuri, Distt. Dharmapuri - 636701, Tamilnadu.

Shri Kailash Chandra Meena shall be reinstated into the service from the date he reports to duty to take up his assignment at VDPL, Dharmapuri or upon expiry of 7 days from 'the date he receives the instant Order, whichever is earlier. In the event of non-reporting to duty within 7 days, even

--7--

after receipt of this letter, his absence would be treated as unauthorised absence, unless, explicit permission / approval is obtained from the competent authority in accordance with applicable leave rules.

I hereby authorize Shri Amit Kumar Gadodiya, Chief Regional Manager -Retail, Retail SBU, Indore Retail RO to communicate this Order to Shri Kailash Chandra Meena."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the part compliance has been made by the respondents but, the same is not in letter and spirit as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 16.03.2021 in which learned Division Bench had directed to set aside the punishment of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to impose any other punishment (mentioned in para 17 of the impugned order passed in W.P. No.5474/2009 and W.P. No.2981/2010). Learned Division Bench observed that the authorities shall substitute the penalty of dismissal with a lesser punishment and benefits arising out of the said substituted punishment will accrue from the due date.

7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the due date would be the date from which the petitioner has been reinstated and not the date on which he was dismissed from service. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed in the year 2008 and was reinstated in the year 2022. The aforesaid interpretation is beyond the scope and direction issued by this Court inasmuch as specific directions have been issued to that effect that the benefit would flow from the due date in accordance with the substituted punishment.

8. In the present case, the petitioner was though reinstated, however, he

--8--

has been placed to a lower grade, therefore, if the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is correctly interpreted then the petitioner ought to have been reinstated notionally w.e.f. 2008 on a lower grade granting the benefit of increments and other benefits from time to time. Instead the respondents have treated the reinstatement from the date of joining instead of 2008 thereby making the petitioner to again run from pillar to post to fruitify the rights accrued to him.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order has been fully complied with and as a consequence all the benefits have been extended to the petitioner, therefore, this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. On perusal of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in the writ appeals, it is clear as day light that the Court has set aside the impugned punishment order of dismissal to that of some other punishment has to be imposed by the authorities concerned. The authorities in arbitrary and highhanded manner has granted the benefit to the petitioner from the date of reinstatement that too on the scale which was prevalent in the year 2008 without any monetary benefits. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the order dated 16.03.2021 is fully complied with. The respondents/contemnors deserve to be punished for willful disobedience of the order of this Court. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the order dated 16.03.2021 has not been complied with in full, therefore, the competent authorities of respondents are directed to treat the petitioners to have been reinstated with effect from the due date i.e. the date of dismissal in the year 2008 to be in service. Admittedly, the respondents have neither

--9--

complied with the order in full nor have granted any monetary benefit to the petitioners, therefore, in the interest of justice, further period of two months is granted to comply with the order dated 16.03.2021 passed in W.A. No.240/2018 and W.A. No.247/2018 in full and thereafter, communicate the outcome to the appellants forthwith.

List the matter in the week commencing 03.07.2023.

                   (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                  (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA )
                          JUDGE                                  JUDGE



                 N.R.
            Digitally signed
NARENDR by NARENDRA
A KUMAR KUMAR
         RAIPURIA
RAIPURIA Date: 2023.04.24
         19:29:59 +05'30'