Himmat Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1655 of 2016, titled Himmat Kumar Versus State of H.P., dated 02.05.2016, which reads as under:-

"Vide order dated 27.04.2016, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to seek instructions in the matter. Learned Additional Advocate General submits at the bar that the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh is out of station.

Let instructions in the matter be sought for 09.05.2016.

In the meanwhile, operation of impugned office order dated 28.10.2015, Annexure A-1, qua the applicant is stayed."

Shri Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that despite operation of the transfer order of the petitioner dated 28.10.2015, having been expressly stayed by the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the respondents, who were aware of the said order, as the same stood passed in the presence of learned counsel for the respondents, willfully breached the same on the plea, which stands reflected in the reply filed to the contempt petition, that the petitioner already stood relieved when said order was passed by the learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further informs the Court that as of now the original application also stands disposed of by the learned Tribunal in favour of the petitioner, though, the directions passed by the learned Tribunal finally have also not been complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is no willful breach of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as the order stood rendered ineffective, because the petitioner stood relieved to District Lahaul & Spiti vide order dated 20.11.2015 itself, whereas the order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 02.05.2016.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, the stand which has been taken by the respondents-State to justify its act of not implementing the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 02.05.2016, is erroneous. Once the operation of transfer order dated 28.10.2015 stood stayed by the learned Tribunal, option before the respondents was either to get the order modified from the learned Tribunal or assail the same before the higher Court and get the same set aside. Suo-moto the respondents could not have disobeyed the same by assigning any reason whatsoever. This infact amounts to willful disobedience of the Court order. This Court reiterates that once directions are passed by the competent Court of law, then until and unless the same is modified by the same Court or its operation is stayed by the superior Court, respondents to whom directions stand issued, are bound to implement the same.

Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that much water has flown since the time contempt proceedings stood initiated and as it is a matter of record that the original application was also finally decided in favour of the petitioner, this Court refrains from taking any action against the respondents as learned Additional Advocate General assures the Court that the officers concerned shall be apprised of the sentiments of the Court. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is also an illegal deduction of 290 days leave of the petitioner by the respondents. In my considered view, this aspect cannot be gone into by this Court in this petition. In case the petitioner is aggrieved on that count, he shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate Court, if so advised. The petition stands disposed of and notices are discharged.