Advocates:
['BY POST', 'KAMAL KISHORE DAVE', '', 'SUNIL BENIWAL AAG']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Writ Contempt No. 484/2020

R.P. Meena S/o S.l. Meena, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste

Meena, Resident Of A/21, Ashish Vihar, R.b.i. Colony, Jagatpura,

Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Shri S.k. Mishra, Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,

New Delhi 1100001

2.

Shri Anand Prakash, General Manager, North Western

Railway, Head Quarter Office, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur

Rajasthan 302017.

----Respondents

Petitioner present in

person

:

Mr. R.P. Meena.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Kamal Dave.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

02/03/2022

In Application No.8/2021:

The applicant does not press this application.

The application is disposed of, as not pressed.

In Application No.10/2021:

The applicant does not press this application.

The application is disposed of, as not pressed.

In Contempt Petition:

This contempt petition is filed by the employee of the

Railways.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

(2 of 3)

[WCP-484/2020]

The petitioner Ram Prasad Meena was a Railway employee.

During his service career, there were more than one departmental

inquiries instituted. We are concerned with one of them arising

out of charge-sheet dated 07.09.1998 for major penalty. The

disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay

of the employee by one stage for a period of one year with

cummulative effect on 14.11.2000. The employee filed an appeal

and challenged the order of penalty. The appellate authority

passed the order dated 31.07.2002 modifying the penalty to that

of censure. The petitioner challenged this order before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, which by its judgment dated 31.05.2004

set aside the penalty and allowed the petition. Against this

judgment of the CAT, Railways had filed a writ petition before the

High Court, which was dismissed on 06.11.2017.

By an order dated 03.12.2019, the petitioner was retired

pre-maturely. He has filed the present contempt petition alleging

that the fact of the order of censure being set aside by the

Tribunal and which was also confirmed by the High Court, was not

placed before the review committee by the administration which

led to the order of pre-mature retirement passed against him.

According to the petitioner, this amounts to contempt of the

judgment of the High Court.

The respondents have appeared and filed reply opposing the

allegations of contempt. It is pointed out that the judgment

passed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2004 was initially stayed by the

High Court, which was later on modified, upon which the employee

was granted the benefits of promotion and other consequential

reliefs. However, the fact of writ petition being dismissed on

06.11.2017 was lost sight of. This was a bona fide judgment of

(3 of 3)

[WCP-484/2020]

error. It is further pointed out that the employee has challenged

the order of premature retirement before the Central Administrate

Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the documents on record, we do not find any case of

contempt being made out. As noted, the only allegation against

the administration is that further development of censure order

passed by the appellate authority being set aside by the CAT,

which was also approved by the High Court, was not brought on

record when the review committee considered the case of the

petitioner for premature retirement. It may be an error, unless

non-placing of these facts was actuated by malice, the same

would not amount to contempt. The employee has challenged the

order of pre-mature retirement by instituting independent

proceedings. Surely, the CAT would examine all aspects of the

mater including the effect of review committee not having the

benefit of knowledge that the order of censure has also been set

as