B.P. Akalwadi vs Raju Chawla The Managing Director Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—The instant contempt petition came to be filed at the hands of the complainant-Petitioner alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2009 whereby Writ Petition bearing No. 14643/2005 filed by the complainant Petitioner was disposed of.

A perusal of the order passed by this Court reveals, that the impugned order of dismissal from service (passed against the Petitioner) was quashed, whereupon, the competent authority was required to reconsider the claim of the complainant-Petitioner with specific reference to the defence set up by him. The operative part of the order dated 7.9.2009 is being extracted hereunder:

The matter is remanded to the first Respondent for reconsideration with particular reference to the defence set up by the Petitioner and to address the same by offering valid reasons in either accepting the enquiry report or rejecting the same.

In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the competent authority, taking into consideration the order dated 7.9.2010, passed a detailed speaking order dated 19/20.1.2010 (Annexure-G).

Despite the aforesaid order dated 19/20.1.2010 passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 7.9.2010, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant-Petitioner, that the complainant-Petitioner ought to have been first reinstated into service, specially, when the order of dismissal had been set aside by this Court vide its order dated 7.9.2010. It is submitted, that even though, it was competent for the authorities to pass the order dated 19/20.1.2010, the mere fact, that the complainant-Petitioner had not been reinstated into service amounted to willful disobedience of the order passed on 7.9.2010.

In order to substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the complainant-Petitioner has placed reliance on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, , wherefrom, our pointed attention has been drawn to the following observation recorded therein:

While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of passing of the order which has been quashed. The Stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would riot be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant-Petitioner. We are, however, satisfied, that in the absence of an express direction to the accused-Respondent, requiring him to reinstate the complainant-Petitioner, it cannot be concluded that the accused-Respondent has, in any way, violated the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2010. By the aforesaid order dated 7.9.2010, the competent-authority was required to reconsider the claim raised by the complainant-Petitioner by taking into consideration the defence set up by him. We are satisfied, that the detailed speaking order passed by the accused-Respondent dated 19/20.1.2010, fully satisfies the directions issued by this Court.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant contempt petition. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is dismissed.

Liberty is granted to the complainant-Petitioner to assail the order dated 19/20.1.2010, if he is so advised, in accordance with law.