IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8845 of 2023

======================================================

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi 110001.

2.

The Director General, Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, New Delhi

110001.

3.

The Deputy Director (ADMN). Office of Director General, Doordarshan,

Doordarshan Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

4.

The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti, P.T.I. Building, 2nd Floor,

Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.

5.

The Deputy Director (Engineering), Doordarshan Kendra, Patna - 800001.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Satish Kumar son of Sri Madan Mohan Lal, Casual Labour (Group D),

Doordarshan Kendra, Chaju Bagh, Patna, Resident of Village/Mohalla- North

Patel Nagar, Besides Nala, P.O. - Kesari Nagar, District- Patna - 800024

(Bihar).

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 24-07-2023

In the present writ petition, petitioners have assailed the

order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 24.04.2023 passed in C.P./110/2018

(Patna) [Contempt]. The aforementioned C.P./110/2018 is filed for

non-compliance of the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in O.A. No.

585 of 2017 by respondent – Satish Kumar.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8845 of 2023 dt.24-07-2023

2/11

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

order of the Tribunal dated 27.07.2018 passed O.A. No. 585 of

2017 has been complied while passing order on 02.04.2019 to the

extent that respondent – Satish Kumar is not eligible to be enlisted

with a temporary status and further he is not entitled to

absorption/regularization. Based on the order of the Tribunal dated

27.07.2018 passed in O.A. No. 585 of 2017 read with order of the

petitioners dated 02.04.2019, respondent - Satish Kumar invoked

remedy of contempt of Tribunal petition and filed contempt

petition bearing C.P./110 /2018.

3. The Tribunal after analyzing factual aspects of the

matter proceeded to hold that, prima facie, it appears to be a fit

case for framing the charges against petitioners and were called on

23.05.2023 to plead on the charges to be framed. Feeling

aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2023, the

present petition is filed.

4. Preliminary issue is whether writ petition is

maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal in contempt

petition/proceedings/case or not?

5. The distinction between the orders passed by the

Tribunal on matters covered by Section 14 (1) and orders

Patna High Court CWJC No.8845 of 2023 dt.24-07-2023

3/11

punishing for contempt under Section 17 of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 14 (1) and Section 17 reads as under:

“14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the

Central Administrative Tribunal - (1) Save as otherwise

expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative

Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the

jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately

before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court

46[***] in relation to—

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to

any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a

civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence

or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by

a civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning—

(i) a member of any All-India Service; or

(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India

Service or a person referred to in clause (c)]