Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
C.P.No.650/2018
M.A.No.5330/2018
O.A. No.1669/2017
Thursday, this the 20th day of December 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
Copernicus Marg, Delhi – 110 001
..Petitioner
Versus
Advocate Ravi Kumar, aged 40 years
s/o Mr. Sewa Ram
r/o KG-1, 543, Vikaspuri
New Delhi – 110 018
..Respondent
(Respondent in person)
(Mr. N K Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents in O.A.)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
C.P. No.650/2018
The respondent (Ravi Kumar) filed O.A. No. 1669/2017
challenging the order of termination dated 08.08.2016. Notice
was ordered and the O.A. underwent some adjournments. On
19.03.2018, this Tribunal passed a detailed order to the effect
that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are not necessary parties. He was
directed to file amended memo of parties within one week. At
that stage, the respondent filed W.P. (C) No.5763/2018 before
the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court, with one of the prayers being, a
2
direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. expeditiously.
The writ petition was disposed of on 25.05.2018 directing that
the respondents in the O.A. shall ensure that counter affidavit is
filed within three weeks after the Tribunal re-opens in July and
rejoinder, if any, shall be filed well before the next date of
hearing, that may be fixed by the Tribunal. The O.A. was taken
up on 30.05.2018. The respondent filed an amended memo of
parties through an Application, and the same was ordered. He
has also filed M.A. No.2460/2018 and notice returnable by
05.07.2018 was ordered.
2. On 05.07.2018, it was noticed that the pleadings in the
O.A. are complete and accordingly, it was directed to be listed
for final hearing on 06.12.2018. The respondent filed W.P. (C)
No. 9326/2018 feeling aggrieved by the fixation of date of
hearing in December. In that writ petition, the respondent
made highly derogatory remarks against the Tribunal in
paragraph (5). The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon‟ble
High Court on 19.09.2018. Taking note of the scandalous
language employed by him in the writ petition, the Tribunal
issued notice to the respondent requiring him to explain as to
why proceedings be not initiated against him for contempt of
court.
3. Respondent filed M.A. Nos.4828 & 4829/2018 taking
objections to the very initiation of the proceedings as well as the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to initiate the proceedings. The said
3
M.As. were disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2018 and the
respondent was given opportunity to file counter affidavit, if
any, in the C.P. Today, it is represented that the respondent has
filed W.P. (C) No. 13782/2018 before the Hon‟ble High Court
challenging the order dated 20.11.2018 and that the same was
dismissed on 19.12.2018. The respondent did not file any reply
so far. However, a memorandum expressing regrets and
tendering apology is filed.
4. We heard Mr. Ravi Kumar, respondent in detail and Mr.
N K Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondents in O.A. assisted
the Tribunal.
5. One hardly comes across an instance, where outrageous
remarks are made against any institution, much less a court of
law, as was done by the respondent. There may be occasions
where an advocate loses cool in the spur of moment and makes
observations, which may hurt the feelings of the Judges of a
court. In such cases, either on their own accord or on the advise
tendered by the seniors or well wishers, they tender apology and
make amends. In the instant case, however, the respondent was
totally uncontrollable and he does not have even a semblance of
respect for the institution. He feels free and at liberty in
employing words of his choice even while certifying himself to
be the epitome of virtues. Lack of respect may not be that
serious, a concern. What worries us is the
