IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Raj Kumar Yadav & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 378 of 2018 and W.P.(C) 412 of 2018
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Violation of Tribunal Order - Restoration of Closed Case - The court revived the contempt petition and directed the Tribunal to hear the case on its merit, considering the pleadings filed by the parties before the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing their MA seeking restoration of the CP, which was closed by the Tribunal. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal decided the CP in their absence and in violation of a previous order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had dismissed the CP without hearing the petitioners and also dismissed the MA seeking restoration of the petition. The court directed the Tribunal to hear the case on its merit, considering the pleadings filed by the parties before the court.
Issues: Violation of Tribunal order, dismissal of MA seeking restoration of CP
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's dismissal of the CP without hearing the petitioners and the MA seeking restoration was inappropriate. The court directed the Tribunal to consider the pleadings filed by the parties before the court and hear the case on its merit.
Final Decision: The court revived the contempt petition and directed the Tribunal to hear the case on its merit, considering the pleadings filed by the parties before the court.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - The challenge in these petitions is to an order dated November 30, 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal', for short) in MA 1393/2017 filed in CP 595/2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the MA filed by the petitioners herein seeking restoration of the CP, which was closed by the Tribunal vide order dated March 21, 2017 by holding that the order dated February 03, 2016 passed by the Tribunal has been substantially complied with.
2. The only submission made by Mr. Romy Chacko is that the Tribunal has decided the CP on March 21, 2017 in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners. He submits, there is a violation of order passed by the Tribunal on February 03, 2016 inasmuch as the respondents have, without resorting to the regular appointments, disengaged the appointments of the petitioners. This according to him is at variance with the paragraph 24.1 of the order dated February 03, 2016 passed by the Tribunal.
3. Though, Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, appearing for the respondents would justify the order of the Tribunal, we are of the view that, since the Tribunal vide the impugned order has dismissed the CP without hearing the petitioners and also dismissed the MA filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of the petition, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to hear the counsel for the parties and decide the CP on its merit. While doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the pleadings filed by the parties before this Court in this writ petition, to come to a just conclusion. In this regard, permission is granted to the petitioners as well as to the respondents to place the affidavits/pleadings filed before this Court in this writ petition on the record of the Tribunal by way of an affidavit within four weeks from today.
4. We accordingly revive the contempt petition being CP 595/2016 in O.A. 4402/2015 on the Board of the Tribunal and the same shall be listed before the Tribunal on November 06, 2023 when the parties shall appear before the Tribunal.
5. The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
6. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for information and compliance.
Tribunal's decision to dismiss a case without hearing the parties and considering relevant pleadings may be inappropriate and subject to revival upon court's direction.
Importance of ensuring compliance with previous orders and considering the petitioner's contentions before closing a contempt petition.
Review petitions should demonstrate an apparent error on the face of the order being challenged, rather than challenging the order on its merits.
The court has the power of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and can set aside orders if they are not in accordance with the law.
The importance of establishing the alleged violator's knowledge of the order and deliberate violation.
Contempt proceedings in cases where orders passed by the High Court in petitions subsequently stand transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal shall lie only before the Tribunal under Section....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.