Roop Lal vs Ajeet Kumar Thakur

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the order passed by learned Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3017 of 2017, titled as Shri Roop Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 29.06.2017, relevant portion thereof reads as under:­

"In the facts and circumstances and interest of justice, the original application is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation (Annexure A­3) in accordance with rules/ law as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the said authority by the applicant, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him as well as private respondent No.4".

Annexure P­3, appended with this Contempt Petition itself demonstrates that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the representation filed by the petitioner stood disposed of by the authority, with the observation that no action could be taken upon the same in view of the fact that a disciplinary inquiry was under way against the petitioner inconsonance with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petition as well as the contents of the response filed to the Contempt Petition as also the documents appended therewith, in my considered view there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal, seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet, which stood issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority. However, rather than contesting the case on merit, the petitioner took a call to seek a direction from the learned Tribunal that the representation which stood filed by him before the Competent Authority for quashing of the representation be decided by the Competent Authority. The request of the petitioner was considered by the learned Tribunal and order was passed. The Competent Authority concluded that as disciplinary proceedings stood initiated against the petitioner strictly as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1965, which were underway, as an Inquiry Officer stood appointed and further as the inquiry proceedings were in progress, no action could be taken by the Competent Authority on the representation. It was further observed by the Competent Authority that in case the petitioner finds himself unsatisfied with the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, then he had a right to represent before the Disciplinary Authority against the inquiry report also.

Be that as it may, as this Court is satisfied that in the peculiar facts of this case, the only order which could have been passed by the Competent Authority on the representation of the petitioner, was that no action could be taken on it on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Said order having been passed by the Competent Authority, no contempt is made out.

These contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped and notice stands discharged.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Learned Additional Advocate General assures the Court that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to their logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible. Even otherwise, in case there is any inordinate delay in finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, then the petitioner is always at liberty to seek appropriate direction in this regard by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.