Valid communication of the final order and conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding within the stipulated date are crucial in contempt cases.

In re: C.P.A.N 835 of 2017

1. Heard Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader being assisted by Mr. Pinaki Dhole and Mr. Avishek Prasad representing the alleged contemnors and learned counsel Mr. D.N Roy being assisted by Mr. Sankha Ghosh and Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy representing the applicant in the contempt application where the only lis is as to whether there has been a violation of this Court’s order directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceeding on or before 9th June, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/writ petitioner relying upon paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 and paragraph nos.31, 35 and 36 in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 submits that the final order in the disciplinary proceeding was passed without grant of any opportunity of hearing and as such the same is not sustainable and since communication of the result of the disciplinary proceeding was not complete within the period fixed by the Court, last date of which was 9th June, 2017, there has been a deliberate violation of the Court’s order and the proceeding stands lapsed and as such appropriate order should be passed against the contemnors since for violation of the order of this Court, the applicant has been the worst sufferer.

3. Mr. Majumder, learned Government Pleader, per contra, inviting our attention to the materials on record submits that there were certain formalities which had to be completed for conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. After the applicant replied to the show cause notice dated 6th March, 2017 on 20th March, 2017, the Irrigation and Waterways Department (in short, I&W Department) consulted the Public Service Commission (in short, the PSC). The queries of PSC were answered by the I&W Department on 25th May, 2017 but thereafter as no communication was forthcoming from PSC and as the period stipulated for conclusion of the proceeding was fast approaching, the Joint Secretary, I&W Department filed an application for extension of time being C.A.N 5307 of 2017 on 6th June, 2017. Thereafter on 7th June, 2017 the I&W Department received a memo dated 5th June, 2017 from PSC recommending imposition of penalty. Immediately the file was sent for the assent of the Hon’ble Governor and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the final order on 9th June, 2017. The said final order was posted from the G.P.O at 17.59 hours on 9th June, 2017 and simultaneously sent in a sealed cover by a special messenger to the residential address to the applicant but as he was not available at his residence, the special messenger pasted the final order outside the main door of the applicant’s house.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in reply, submits that the applicant was not served with copy of the CAN application and that the reply furnished in response to the applicant’s application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 would clearly reveal that the final order was only sent by the authorities but not actually served upon the applicant on 9th June, 2017 and as communication of the decision was not complete the proceeding cannot be construed to have been concluded on 9th June, 2017, the date stipulated in the order of this Court and as such there has been a deliberate violation of the Court’s order.

5. The only consideration before us is as to whether there has been any wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court towards conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding by 9th June, 2017.

6. Perused the cases cited by learned counsel of the applicant. For proper appraisal, let us set out paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 from the case of Sethi Auto (supra) which runs as follows:

“14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an officer is an expression of his vie