Ranveer Singh vs Akheleshwar Ram Mishra And Another

Hon''ble Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel.

The applicant had been selected as constable in the P.A.C. in the year 2006. Lateron it appears that his appointment was cancelled by order dated 13.7.2007, passed by the Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C. Moradabad on the ground that there was wrongful disclosure by the applicant in his affidavit submitted at the time of the character verification. The concealment alleged was that he had not disclosed about the pending criminal cases. The order of cancellation of appointment was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.33504 of 2007. The ground taken was that in the alleged criminal case, the applicant was never made an accused. The writ Court granted time to the learned Standing Counsel to produce relevant records with regard to the applicant being an accused in the criminal case. Learned Standing Counsel conceded, upon perusal of the records, that the applicant was not an accused in the said criminal case and as such there was no concealment on his part. The Writ Court thus, found that the cancellation of the appointment of the applicant was based upon non existent facts and had been passed on a wrong premise and as such allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 02.08.2007 with costs of Rs.10,000/-to be paid by Sri Bhajni Ram Mina, the then Commandant of the 9th Battalion, P.A.C., Moradabad who had passed the order dated 13.07.2007.

Despite service of the said order of the writ Court, when the directions of the Writ Court were not being complied with the present contempt application was filed in the year 2009 impleading Sri Akheleshwar Ram Mishra, the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C., Moradabad as opposite party no.1 and Sri Bhajni Ram Mina, the Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C., Morabad who had passed the order of cancellation of appointment of the applicant and against whom the Court had imposed costs of Rs.10,000/-. Both the opposite parties have filed separate counter affidavits dated 17.09.2011 and 16.09.2011.

The opposite party no.1, admits of being posted at 9th Battalion, P.A.,C., Moradabad between 11.08.2009 to 10.11.2010 i.e. the time when the contempt application was filed and the notices were issued. The only defence taken in the counter affidavit is that the State although had filed an intra Court appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge but the same had been dismissed by order dated 27.11.2007 with liberty to the State to file a review. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the review application has been filed in August, 2008 which is pending consideration. Apart from the pendency of the review petition, no other reasons have been given for non compliance of the judgment of the writ Court even though he stayed at Moradabad, 9th Battalion, P.A.C., Moradabad for almost 15 months.

The opposite party no.2 also filed an affidavit sworn on 16.09.2011 in which it has been stated that he was transferred from the post of Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C. Moradabad within a week of passing the order dated 13.07.2007, by which the appointment of the applicant had been cancelled.

It has further been stated in the affidavit that as he had already been transferred there was no occasion for him to comply with the order of the Writ Court. Nowhere it has been stated in the affidavit that the cost of Rs.10,000/-which was to be deposited by him has since been paid.

It has been stated by Sri Mithiliesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant that at present Ms. Beena Bhukes is the Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C. Moradabad. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed an application to implead her as opposite party no.3. The said application is numbered as 296850 of 2011.

Since transfers of the officers holding administrative posts are quite frequent and it is very difficult to a successful litigant to get the orders complied with on account of frequent transfers of the administrative officers, in the opinion of the Court, whoever is posted as the Commandant 9th Battalion P.A.C. Moradabad be informed by the learned Standing counsel Sri K.R. Singh to ensure compliance of the judgment of the writ Court or else would remain present on the next date fixed. A month''s time is allowed to the present incumbent on the post of Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C. Moradabad.

List this case on 30.1.2012. If by the said date an affidavit of full compliance of the judgment of the writ Court is not filed or any interim protection is not obtained from any superior Court, whoever is posted as Commandant, 9th Battalion, P.A.C., Moradabad shall remain present before this Court.

A copy of this order be provided to Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, free of costs, within 24 hours for necessary compliance.