NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 116 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9454/2013
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal .....Petitioner
Versus
Sumit Bose & Another ....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Chelameswar, J.
1. This contempt petition is filed complaining that the
respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court
dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the
respondents be punished for contempt and also direct the
respondents to implement the judgment of this Court dated 22nd
November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.
2. The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No.
9454 of 2013 is as follows:-
The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue
Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations of
misconduct on 28.12.1999. On the basis of the said allegations,
criminal cases are also pending against the applicant. In view of
1
the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant's
suspension continued for a long period. Eventually, the
applicant challenged two orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012
by which his suspension was continued in O.A. No. 495 of 2012
on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi. By its order dated 1.6.2012, the Tribunal
allowed the above mentioned O.A.. The operative portion of the
order reads as follows:-
"Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
opinion that (i) the directions of the Tribunal issued to the
respondents in OA NO. 2842/2010 decided on 16.12.2011
have not been complied with in both letter and spirit while
passing the impugned orders dated 12.01.2012 and
03.02.2012; and (ii) the continuance of the applicants
suspension is not tenable. In the result, the orders dated
12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 are quashed and set aside with
direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension and
to reinstate him in service. The applicant would be
entitled to legally admissible consequential benefits.
We make it very clear that taking note of the grave
charges leveled against him, the applicant may be posted
in a non-sensitive post where the Competent Authority
considers that he would have neither access to the relevant
records nor would have opportunity to influence the
witnesses. We also further add that if at any point of time
in future the criminal trial proceedings commence by the
trial Court, the respondents would have the liberty to
consider the possibility of keeping the officer under
suspension at that point of time if the facts and
circumstances so warrant."
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein preferred
the writ petition(c) no. 5247 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court
which was dismissed in limine by a judgment dated 17.9.2012.
2
Not satisfied with the said judgment, the respondents
approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 30368 of 2012 which
eventually came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No. 9454 of
2013.
This Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2013 dismissed the
said appeal.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt is that
though he succeeded in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 which order was
confirmed both by the High Court as well as by this Court, the
respondents have not given him "legally admissible consequential
benefits" as directed in the Order of the Administrative Tribunal.
4. According to the petitioner, the "legally admissible
consequential benefits" are two - (1) in view of the fact that the
Tribunal quashed the orders of extension of the suspension of
the petitioner dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012, the petitioner is
entitled for the salary and other allowances applicable to his
office with effect from 12.1.2012; (2) the petitioner is entitled to
be considered for promotion to the next higher post in view of the
fact that during the long pendency of his suspension, many
officers junior to him in service had been promoted.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional
3
Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for
the full salary with effect from 12.1.2012. In view of certain
departmental circulars, it is open to the Department to examine
and decide what are the appropriate amounts which are required
to be paid to the petitioner. Learned ASG further submitted that
the right of the petitioner to considerations of the promotion of
the next higher post cannot be the subject matter of this present
contempt petition as it was not the subject matter of the original
application no. 495 of 2012.
6. Thirdly, learned ASG submitted that pursuant to the
directions of the Tribunal as confirmed up to this court, the
petitioner was reinstated into service. He was relieved from his
original posting at Delhi and was given a posting to West Bengal
CCA by an Order dated 10th January, 2014. Consequent upon
which, the petitioner was relieved from his earlier posting on
16th February, 2014. The order relieving him had been duly
served on him on 16th January, 2014. Petitioner did not chose
to report at the newly posted station instead chose to challenge
the posting order in a fresh O.A. No. 178 of 2014 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi and obtained ex-parte
orders of status quo on the misrepresentation that he had still
not been relieved from Delhi CCA.
7. With regard to his submission pertaining to the entitlement
4
of the petitioner for back wages, the Government of India in the
Ministry of Finance by its order dated 6th January, 2014 held
that the revocation of the suspension would not entitle the
petitioner the claim of back wages. Learned ASG relied upon the
departmental instructions contained in Fundamental Rule 54B
in support of the decision of the Government. The relevant
portion of the Fundamental Rules is as follows:-
Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment
of service on reinstatement after suspension. - 1. When a
Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated
or would have been so reinstated but for his
retirement(including premature retirement) while under
suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement
shall consider and make a specific order-
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to
the Government servant for the period of suspension
ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement
(including premature retirement), as the case may be; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated
as a period spent on duty."
8. We are not able to agree with the submission made by
learned ASG as that the rule has no application to those cases
where the suspension order is quashed by judicial or
quasi-judicial body. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for his pay and other allowances w.e.f. 12th
January, 2012. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner
did not report to service pursuant to the order dated 10th
January, 2014 and obtained interim orders from the
Administrative Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the
5
entitlement for the receipt of the salary w.e.f. 10.1.2014 would
depend upon the outcome of the O.A. We make it clear that as
of now, he is entitled to salary and other allowances with effect
from 12.1.2012 to 10.1.2014.
9. Coming to the question of entitlement of the petitioner's case
for consideration for promotion to the next higher post, it has
rightly been pointed out by learned ASG that the question cannot
be properly the subject matter of the contempt petition. If the
petitioner has any grievance, he is entitled to approach the
appropriate forum seeking such relief as he is entitled in law.
10. With these observations, the contempt petition is disposed
of. The respondents shall pay the above mentioned amounts to
which the petitioner is entitled within a period of two months.
..........................................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
..........................................J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi;
February 28, 2014.
ITEM NO. 1A Court No.4 SECTION XIV
(for Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 116 OF 2014 IN Civil Appeal No(s).
9454/2013
ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL Petitioner(s)
6
VERSUS
SUMIT BOSE & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date: 28/02/2014 This Petition was called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar
pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of
Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and His Lordship.
The contempt petition is disposed of in
terms of the non-reportable judgment.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (M.S. NEGI)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
7
8
|
