CLCON/164/2017
2021 Latest Caselaw 1332 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       Contempt Petition No. 164 of 2017


BETWEEN:

Balbir Singh                                 ....Petitioner


AND:

Chandra Shekhar Bhatt & others              .....Respondents


                     With
       Contempt Petition No. 166 of 2017


BETWEEN:

Hemraj Singh                                 ....Petitioner


AND:

Chandra Shekhar Bhatt & others              .....Respondents

                     With
       Contempt Petition No. 167 of 2017


BETWEEN:

Krishanpal Singh                               ....Petitioner
     (There is no representation for the petitioner)

AND:

Chandra Shekhar Bhatt & others              .....Respondents
     (By Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing Counsel for the State
     of Uttarakhand/Opposite Parties)
                               2

                      JUDGMENT

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these contempt petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of Contempt Petition No. 164 of 2017 are being considered.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Basic School Teacher. His services were terminated. Against termination order, he filed WPSS No. 618 of 2016. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 28.03.2017. Operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

"Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned termination orders passed in all the connected writ petitions are quashed and set- aside. The respondent-State is directed to reinstate the petitioner(s) in all the connected matters with all consequential benefits with a period of six weeks from today.

However, liberty is reserved to the respondents- State to proceed with the matter in accordance with law."

3. In this Contempt Petition, petitioner has alleged that the judgment rendered by Writ Court has not been complied with, inasmuch as, he has not been reinstated and other consequential benefits have also not been paid to him.

4. In the counter affidavit, the defence taken by the respondents was that the judgment rendered by Writ Court has been challenged by filing Special Appeal No. 545 of 2017.

5. Today, learned Standing Counsel has produced in Court a letter issued by District Education

Officer (Elementary Education), Udham Singh Nagar on 31.03.2021.

6. A perusal of the said letter reveals that the judgment rendered by Writ Court was modified in Appeal by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2019. Relevant extract of the judgment rendered by Division Bench is extracted below:

"6. The appellant-respondent should have conducted a departmental enquiry, in as much as the respondent-writ petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him. They should have also afforded the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in such an enquiry and, thereafter, should have furnished him a copy of the enquiry report calling for his objections. It is only thereafter, could a punishment have been imposed on the petitioner. Instead, the appellant has straightway, after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges, dismissed him from service.

7. While, we find no error in the order under appeal necessitating interference in so far as the order of punishment was set aside by the learned Single Judge, the fact however remains that the learned Single Judge has also directed that the respondent-writ petitioner be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.

8. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.12.2015, and continued to remain under suspension when he was dismissed from service by proceedings dated 6.1.2016. Setting aside the order of punishment would only require that the order of suspension be continued, and for the disciplinary enquiry to be completed early.

9. In such circumstances, we consider it appropriate to modify the order of learned Single Judge and direct the appellants-respondents to continue to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance, which he is entitled to during the period of suspension, till the completion of departmental enquiry initiated against him.

10. As a charge memo was issued to the petitioner as early as on 11.3.2014 i.e. nearly 5 years ago, the appellant- respondent is directed to complete the departmental enquiry with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

11. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of"

7. The aforesaid letter dated 31.03.2021 further indicates that, in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, an enquiry was held against the petitioner and, based on the report of enquiry committee, petitioner was removed from service, against which petitioner has approached Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand by filing Claim Petition No. 88/MB/DB/2020, which is pending.

8. Since the order passed by Writ Court was modified in appeal and the respondents have acted in terms of judgment rendered by Division Bench and removed the petitioner after enquiry and such removal order is challenged by the petitioner before Public Services Tribunal, thus in the humble opinion of this Court, this is not a case of wilful disobedience of the order of Writ Court.

9. Accordingly, Contempt Petitions are closed. Contempt notices issued against respondents are hereby discharged.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin