JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Rajnesh Oswal, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
Kiran Jyoti – Appellant
Versus
Iftikhar Ahmad Hakim, The Then Chief Town Planner, Jammu & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1501 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous No. 5946 of 2021
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Contempt of Court - Transfer of Employee - Central Administrative Tribunal - [TRANSFER, CONTEMPT OF COURT, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL] - The court discussed the violation of the order dated 29.05.2020 and the subsequent contempt petition filed by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of establishing that the alleged violator had knowledge of the order and deliberately violated it. The court also considered the questions of law proposed by the petitioner's counsel, focusing on the interpretation of the interim order and the dismissal of the contempt petition. The court ultimately upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, stating that the order dated 29.05.2020 was not served upon the respondent No. 1, and therefore dismissed the writ petition for lack of merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Statistical Assistant, was transferred to a new office but did not join at the new place of posting. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondent for not complying with the order dated 29.05.2020 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, stating that the order dated 29.05.2020 was not served upon the respondent No. 1, and therefore the petition lacked merits.
Issues: Violation of order dated 29.05.2020, interpretation of the interim order, dismissal of the contempt petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the alleged violator's knowledge of the order and deliberate violation. The court also considered the questions of law proposed by the petitioner's counsel, focusing on the interpretation of the interim order and the dismissal of the contempt petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merits.
JUDGMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Statistical Assistant was transferred from the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu to the office of District Statistics & Evaluation Officer, Srinagar vide order dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner did not join at the new place of posting and the Joint Director (Central) vide order dated 20.05.2020 directed the petitioner to immediately report for further duties at her new place of posting by 27.05.2020. The petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh for quashing the orders dated 29.12.2017 and 20.05.2020. In the said application, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh vide its order dated 29.05.2020 issued a notice to the respondents therein and posted the matter for 09.06.2020. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh simultaneously stayed the impugned order after recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that she was yet to be relieved. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice dated 03.06.2020 upon the respondent therein for implementation of the said order. Thereafter, on 22.06.2020, the petitioner filed a contempt petition against respondent No. 1 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu (for short 'Tribunal') only on the ground that the petitioner was relieved on the same date when the said order was passed by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 filed the objections to the contempt petition, stating thereby that his office had relieved the petitioner prior to service of interim order dated 29.05.2020 and the legal notice of the petitioner was also duly replied. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the contempt petition vide order dated 26.10.2020.
2. The order dated 26.10.2020 (hereinafter to be referred as order impugned) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu has been impugned by the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner gave a call to Personal Assistant on landline telephone number on 29.05.2020 at 03:00 PM and asked for his mobile number and also for e-mail address of the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu for texting and mailing the copy of interim directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh on 29.05.2020 but despite assurance to revert back after some time, he neither made available his mobile number nor e-mail address of the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu. The petitioner further states that she was not permitted to mark her attendance for 30.05.2020 on the premise that she already stood relieved of her duties on 29.05.2020. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned on the ground that the respondents herein are guilty of committing contempt as the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal continued to be in operation but the respondents did not comply with the said order deliberately and as such, respondent No. 1 was required to be proceeded against for committing contempt of order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal.
3. Reply stands filed by the respondents, in which besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, it has also been stated that the Tribunal has passed the order dated 29.05.2020 after the submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that she was yet to be relieved from the said post. It is further stated that as the petitioner had failed to join at her new place of posting by 27.05.2020 as directed, so the petitioner was relieved on 29.05.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner did not turn back for joining the office of the respondents and rather, she filed the contempt petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is also stated that the interim order dated 29.05.2020 was served upon the office of the respondents on 30.05.2020 i.e. one day after the petitioner was relieved. The petitioner was relieved in the afternoon on 29.05.2020 and even she refused to accept the relievin
The importance of establishing the alleged violator's knowledge of the order and deliberate violation.
The importance of the final decision being made by the Central Administrative Tribunal without being influenced by any observation made in the contempt proceedings.
Contempt of court requires clear evidence of willful disobedience of an unambiguous order; unintentional mistakes do not constitute contempt.
Judicial authority must be respected; failure to comply with Tribunal orders results in administrative contempt and can have significant implications for the affected employee.
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.