RA No. 117/2014 in MA No. 2667/2013 in CP No. 379/2012 in OA No. 3281/2010. Case: Jagdish Prasad Vs Alok Johari. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | RA No. 117/2014 in MA No. 2667/2013 in CP No. 379/2012 in OA No. 3281/2010 |
| Judges | G. George Paracken, Member (J) and V.N. Gaur, Member (A) |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule XLVII; Constitution of India - Articles 311, 311(1) |
| Judgement Date | August 05, 2014 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
G. George Paracken, Member (J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
This Review Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 29.04.2014 passed in MA No. 2667/2013 in CP No. 3281/2010 in OA No. 3281/2010. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
This MA has been filed by the applicant for revival of CP No. 379/2012 which has been closed on 24.08.2012 on the ground that the respondents have filed Writ Petition(C) No. 4847/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the aforesaid order and the High Court has ordered not to proceed with the present Contempt Petition pending before this Tribunal. However, by a subsequent order, dated 22.04.2013, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition vide order dated 22.04.2013.
-
Thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the respondents have passed the order dated 16.12.2013 quashing the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. However, they have held that since the applicant has already superannuated on 31.12.2012, the period from the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. from 19.03.2010 to the date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2012 shall be regularized as leave admissible to him.
In our considered view, by passing the aforesaid order, the respondents have not committed any contempt of court which entitle the petitioner for the revival of the contempt petition. Moreover, we find that the Respondents have made substantial compliance of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. Therefore, this MA for revival of the CP, is dismissed. However, we give liberty to the applicant to challenge the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2013, through fresh original proceedings, if so advised. No costs.
-
The Applicant has taken the following grounds for seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 29.04.2014:-
(i) That the Review Petition being filed falls within the ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC because the Applicant could not produce the relevant documents/Rules at the time of hearing being out of country.
(ii) That when the punishment of compulsory retirement wrongly imposed by the Respondents in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India had been set aside which order was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble High Court whereafter the respondents failed to hold any further inquiry and pass a fresh order despite liberty having been granted to them, the intervening period could not be treated as leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial