Full Text
W.P.(C) 2434/2015
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
^ ..... Respondent
Through:
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
Respondent
Through: None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
18.03.2015 C.M. AppL No. 4378/2015 (Exemption) in W.P. (O No. 2434/2015
C.M. Appl. No. 4383/2015 (Exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 2437/2015
^ Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 2434/2015 & C.M. AppI. No. 4377/2015 (Stay)
W.P. (C) No. 2437/2015 & C.M. Appl. No. 4382/2015 (Stay)
Challenge in these petitions is to the common order dated 21.01.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
2015:DHC:11240-DB
•w
Delhi, in CP No.452/14 in O.A. No. 3967/2013 and CP No.453/2014 in
O.A. No. 3968/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has taken a prima facie view of wilful disobedience on the part of the petitioner disobeying the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in the O.A. Nos. 3967/2013 and
3968/2013. The learned Tribunal has also directed that both the contempt petitions may be listed on 12.12.2015 on which date the learned Tribunal will frame appropriate charge against the contemnors and the contemnors were also directed to remain present in person to answer the charges in their reply interms ofRule 13 ofthe Contempt ofCourts (CAT) Rules, 1992 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the provisions ofthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Assailing the legality and correctness ofthe order, Mr. V.K. Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal, before forming a prima facie view on alleged wilful disobedience and directing contempt proceedings against the petitioner, has not been given proper opportunity of hearing to explain that the petitioners have not committed any contempt of orderpassed by the learned Tribunal in the said two original applications. The learned counsel for thepetitioner also submits that the petitioner was not called upon to file reply to the contempt proceedings and the learned Tribunal has formed the prima facie view based on the oral arguments address by the counsel representing the respondents.
Counsel also submits that in para 11 of the impugned order the learned
Tribunal has wrongly observed that in the fresh order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the petitioner, there is practically a reiteration ofearlier grounds of rejection. Drawing attention of the Court to the contents of the order dated 3.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in addition tothe earlier grounds, one ofthe fresh grounds stated inthe case of respondent - Har Prasad was that on 18.7.2013, approximately 100 boy students ofthe school had assembled at Zonal Office demonstrating against the ill treatment of the respondents - Har Prasad and this led to the issuance of a show cause notice to the respondent to explain his conduct and in response to the same, a vague reply was filed by him. Likewise, an additional ground was also mentioned in the order dated 13.9.2013 passed against Ramesh Chand. Counsel thus submits that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated these additional facts based on which these respondents were found not fit for re-employment and the said rejection order dated
3.12.2014 is not a reiteration of earher grounds as has been observed bythe learned Tribunal.
We have heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner to file their replies to the contempt proceedings. Rule 11 of the Contempt of
Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 contemplates grant ofsuch opportunity of filing a reply and it is only after consideringthe reply filed by the alleged contemnor and hearing the parties, the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that there is prima facie case, to proceed to frame a charge of contempt. Whereas in the present case, the learned Tribunal without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without requiring the petitioner to prefer their replies has formed a prima facie view in the contempt proceedings and has given the direction for framing a charge on 12.02.2015. For better appreciation. Rules 11 and 13 ofthe Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992 are reproduced as under:-
"11. Reply by the respondent. - The respondent may file his reply duly supported by an affidavit on or before the first date ofhearing or within such extended time as may be granted by the Tribunal.
ORDER
13. Hearing of the case and trial. - Upon consideration of the reply filed by the respondent and after hearing theparties: a) If the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology after admitting that he has committed the contempt, the Tribunal may proceed to pass such orders as it deems fit; b) If the respondent does not admit that he has committed contempt, the Tribunal may, i) if it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, proceed to frame the charge in Form No.III (subject to modification or addition by the Tribunal at any time); or a) drop the proceedings and discharge the respondent, if it is satisfied that there is no prima facie case, or that it is not expedient to proceed; c) The respondent shall befurnished with a copy of the charge framed, which shall be read over and explained to the respondent. The Tribunal shall then record his plea, ifany; d) if the respondent pleads guilty, the Tribunal may adjudge him guilty and proceed to pass such sentence as it deemsfit; e) If the respondent pleads not guilty, the case may be taken upfor trial on the same day or posted to any subsequent date as may be directed by the Tribunal." We are informed that this matter is listed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal today. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in CP No.452/14 in O.A. No. 3967/2013 and CP No.453/2014 in O.A. NO. 3968/2013 with a direction to the learned Tribunal that the Tribunal shall give a fresh opportunity to thepetitioners to file their replies and on filing of the reply by the petitioner to the contempt petitions, and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal shall proceed to form its prima facie view in the matter in terms of Rules 11 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992read with Section 17 of the AdministrativeTribunals Act, 1985 and the provisions ofthe Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. With aforesaid directions the present petition and application stand disposed of A copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of Court master to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
MARCH 18, 2015 pkb KAILASH GAMBHIR, J <^^=>fiSrMEHTA, J