The importance of the final decision being made by the Central Administrative Tribunal without being influenced by any observation made in the contempt proceedings.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the contempt petition being CP No. 77/2023 arising out of Original Application bearing OA No. 190/2023 by which the Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of the contempt petition held that it did not find any violation of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as regards the interim order passed on 13.03.2023.

3. Considering the fact that this matter arises out of the application filed by the petitioner/applicant challenging his transfer from Jal Shakti, PHE Division, Pulwama to Jal Shakti SSD, Gurez vide order No. 43/JSD/Estt. Of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 which is the subject matter of challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench in Original Application OA No. 190/2023, we are of the view that it would be more desirable for the Central Administrative Tribunal to finally dispose of the application rather, as any observation made by us at this stage may affect the merit of the case.

4. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the Central Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order on 13.03.2023 in the aforesaid OA No. 190/2023 which, however, has not been complied by the respondents. The operative portion of the interim order reads as follows:

“In the meantime as an interim measure, the impugned transfer order dated 03.03.2023 is stayed to the extent of the applicant till the next date of hearing. The respondents are directed not to disturb the applicant from his present place of posting.”

5. On an alleged violation of the said order, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing a contempt petition bearing CP No. 77/2023 for drawing contempt proceedings as his salary was withheld by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the Central Administrative Tribunal in the said contempt proceedings declined to take any action for the alleged contempt on the ground of absence of any conclusive evidence regarding willful violation allegedly committed by the respondents.

6. The petitioner contends that the CAT, rather taking any action against respondents for contempt, made certain observations which virtually amounts to diluting, thus reviewing the earlier interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 13.03.2023.

7. The Central Administrative Tribunal in the said contempt proceedings interpreted the stay order passed by the CAT on 13.03.2023 by observing that at the time of passing of such a stay order, the CAT did not make any reference to that part of the order of transfer in which it has been specifically mentioned that the transferee shall be deemed to have been immediately relieved w.e.f. 04.03.2023 and, accordingly, it can be presumed that the applicant/petitioner would have been relieved on 04.03.2023.

8. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, such observations certainly amounts to reviewing the original order of the stay passed by CAT on 13.03.2023 in which a categorical order was passed to stay the transfer order dated 03.03.2023 to the extent of the applicant till next date of hearing. It has been submitted that, in the contempt proceedings, the contempt forum ought not to have made any observation as regards the merit of the order which would have the effect of diluting the stay order passed by the CAT.

9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the CAT passed an interim order on 13.03.2023 to the effect that the impugned transfer order dated 03.03.2023 was stayed to the extent of the applicant till next date and there was also further direction to the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from his present place of posting. The said stay order remains till date without any modification. However, the CAT in the contempt proceedings interpreted the stay order by holding that in view of the deeming provision in the