sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)
 Alok Textile Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dulraj U. Jain vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Halcrow Group Ltd vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi)
  Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Bharati Vidyapeeth Chairman
 Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General Of Registration, & Ors. vs P. Babu
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) vs M/s Tata Teleservices Limited Managing Director
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) vs M/s Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
 In The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Union Of India & Ors.
 Lakhan Lal & Anr. vs General Manager (R And R) Narmada Hydrorelectric Development Corporation & Ors.

Contempt Petition No. 116 Of 2014 Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs Sumit Bose & Another
March, 04th 2014


          CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 116 OF 2014
              CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9454/2013

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal                               .....Petitioner


Sumit Bose & Another                               ....Respondents


Chelameswar, J.

1.   This contempt    petition   is   filed   complaining   that     the

respondents have willfully disobeyed the order of this Court

dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the

respondents be punished for contempt and also direct the

respondents to implement the judgment of this Court dated 22nd

November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.

2.   The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No.

9454 of 2013 is as follows:-

     The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue

Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations of

misconduct on 28.12.1999. On the basis of the said allegations,

criminal cases are also pending against the applicant. In view of

the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant's

suspension continued for a long period.                     Eventually, the

applicant challenged two orders dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012

by which his suspension was continued in O.A. No. 495 of 2012

on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi.        By its order dated 1.6.2012, the Tribunal

allowed the above mentioned O.A.. The operative portion of the

order reads as follows:-

              "Considering the totality of the facts and
       circumstances of the case, we are of the considered
       opinion that (i) the directions of the Tribunal issued to the
       respondents in OA NO. 2842/2010 decided on 16.12.2011
       have not been complied with in both letter and spirit while
       passing the impugned orders dated 12.01.2012 and
       03.02.2012; and (ii) the continuance of the applicants
       suspension is not tenable. In the result, the orders dated
       12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 are quashed and set aside with
       direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension and
       to reinstate him in service. The applicant would be
       entitled to legally admissible consequential benefits.

             We make it very clear that taking note of the grave
       charges leveled against him, the applicant may be posted
       in a non-sensitive post where the Competent Authority
       considers that he would have neither access to the relevant
       records nor would have opportunity to influence the
       witnesses. We also further add that if at any point of time
       in future the criminal trial proceedings commence by the
       trial Court, the respondents would have the liberty to
       consider the possibility of keeping the officer under
       suspension at that point of time if the facts and
       circumstances so warrant."

    Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein preferred

the writ petition(c) no. 5247 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court

which was dismissed in limine by a judgment dated 17.9.2012.

     Not satisfied with the said judgment, the respondents

approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 30368 of 2012 which

eventually came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No. 9454 of


     This Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2013 dismissed the

said appeal.

3.   The grievance of the petitioner in the contempt is that

though he succeeded in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 which order was

confirmed both by the High Court as well as by this Court, the

respondents have not given him "legally admissible consequential

benefits" as directed in the Order of the Administrative Tribunal.

4.   According   to   the   petitioner,   the   "legally   admissible

consequential benefits" are two - (1) in view of the fact that the

Tribunal quashed the orders of extension of the suspension of

the petitioner dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012, the petitioner is

entitled for the salary and other allowances applicable to his

office with effect from 12.1.2012; (2) the petitioner is entitled to

be considered for promotion to the next higher post in view of the

fact that during the long pendency of his suspension, many

officers junior to him in service had been promoted.

5.   On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional

Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for

the full salary with effect from 12.1.2012.    In view of certain

departmental circulars, it is open to the Department to examine

and decide what are the appropriate amounts which are required

to be paid to the petitioner. Learned ASG further submitted that

the right of the petitioner to considerations of the promotion of

the next higher post cannot be the subject matter of this present

contempt petition as it was not the subject matter of the original

application no. 495 of 2012.

6.   Thirdly, learned ASG submitted that pursuant to the

directions of the Tribunal as confirmed up to this court, the

petitioner was reinstated into service. He was relieved from his

original posting at Delhi and was given a posting to West Bengal

CCA by an Order dated 10th January, 2014. Consequent upon

which, the petitioner was relieved from his earlier posting on

16th February, 2014. The order relieving him had been duly

served on him on 16th January, 2014. Petitioner did not chose

to report at the newly posted station instead chose to challenge

the posting order in a fresh O.A. No. 178 of 2014 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi and obtained ex-parte

orders of status quo on the misrepresentation that he had still

not been relieved from Delhi CCA.

7.   With regard to his submission pertaining to the entitlement

of the petitioner for back wages, the Government of India in the

Ministry of Finance by its order dated 6th January, 2014 held

that the revocation of the suspension would not entitle the

petitioner the claim of back wages. Learned ASG relied upon the

departmental instructions contained in Fundamental Rule 54B

in support of the decision of the Government.                  The relevant

portion of the Fundamental Rules is as follows:-

               Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment
        of service on reinstatement after suspension. - 1. When a
        Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated
        or would have been so reinstated but for his
        retirement(including premature retirement) while under
        suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement
        shall consider and make a specific order-

              (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to
        the Government servant for the period of suspension
        ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement
        (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and

              (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated
        as a period spent on duty."

8.   We are not able to agree with the submission made by

learned ASG as that the rule has no application to those cases

where    the    suspension      order    is    quashed    by     judicial    or

quasi-judicial body.      Therefore, we are of the opinion that the

petitioner is entitled for his pay and other allowances w.e.f. 12th

January, 2012. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner

did not report to service pursuant to the order dated 10th

January,       2014   and     obtained        interim   orders       from   the

Administrative Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the

   entitlement for the receipt of the salary w.e.f. 10.1.2014 would

   depend upon the outcome of the O.A. We make it clear that as

   of now, he is entitled to salary and other allowances with effect

   from 12.1.2012 to 10.1.2014.

   9.   Coming to the question of entitlement of the petitioner's case

   for consideration for promotion to the next higher post, it has

   rightly been pointed out by learned ASG that the question cannot

   be properly the subject matter of the contempt petition. If the

   petitioner has any grievance, he is entitled to approach the

   appropriate forum seeking such relief as he is entitled in law.

   10. With these observations, the contempt petition is disposed

   of. The respondents shall pay the above mentioned amounts to

   which the petitioner is entitled within a period of two months.

                                             (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                             (J. CHELAMESWAR)

   New Delhi;
   February 28, 2014.
ITEM NO. 1A                  Court No.4                      SECTION XIV
(for Judgment)

             S U P R E M E      C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 116 OF 2014 IN Civil Appeal No(s).

ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL                                           Petitioner(s)


SUMIT BOSE & ANR.                                     Respondent(s)

Date: 28/02/2014     This Petition was called on for pronouncement
                     of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)       Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta,Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.

           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

              Hon'ble    Mr.   Justice    J.   Chelameswar
       pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of
       Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and His Lordship.

              The contempt petition is disposed         of   in
       terms of the non-reportable judgment.

        (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI)             (M.S. NEGI)
           Court Master              Assistant Registrar
         (Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions