R.K. DEY Vs. K.N. RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 herein, on the basis of judgment dated 8.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 4708/1997, wanted payment of subsistence allowance from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement pursuant to the said orders of the Division Bench. As it was not paid, the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent" since respondents No. 2 and 3 are proforma parties) filed Cont. Cas (C) No. 240/2007 in which vide order dated 1.8.2007, directions were given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants to make payment of the subsistence allowance to the respondent. Challenging this order, present appeal is filed primarily on the ground that as the Division Bench in its order dated 8.3.2006 had authorized the appellants to pass appropriate orders in respect of the said period and armed with those directions the appellants have passed the orders rejecting the claim of the subsistence allowance and treated that period as dies non. On this basis, submission of the appellant, essentially, is that if the respondent was aggrieved against that "order, his only remedy was to challenge those orders by filing appropriate proceedings and in no case, contempt would lie. For appreciating this controversy, we will have to traverse the material facts and we proceed to undertake that exercise now. The respondent was an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). At the relevant time, i.e., on 17.4.1996 he was working as Lance Naik. On certain allegations he was charge -sheeted. Inquiry was held holding charges as proved and orders dated 11.1.1997 were passed dismissing him from service. He challenged those orders dated 11.1.1997 by filing WP(C) No. 4708/1997 in this Court. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings, which were initiated against the respondent, were conducted ex parte, which was not proper as during the relevant period the respondent was in hospital. Therefore, the inquiry as well as the punishment order set aside giving liberty to the appellant to proceed afresh against the respondent after giving due opportunity to him. While setting aside the orders of termination of service of the respondent as well as the order of the Appellant Authority, the following directions were given with which we are concerned in these proceedings: -

(2.) IT is clear from the above that following three directions are contained in the said order: -

(3.) THE departmental inquiry was also conducted from the stage of submission of "reply to the charge and on the completion of the same, the respondent was awarded the punishment of reduction of pay to the lowest stage from Rs. 3500/ - to Rs. 3050/ - in the time scale of Rs. 3050 -75 -4590 for a period of three years with cumulative effect vide orders dated 31.8.2006. After the imposition of this punishment, show cause notice dated 19.9.2006 was served upon the respondent as to why the period from his initial removal till the reinstatement, on the basis of High Court orders, i.e., from 30.9.1996 to 22.3.2006 be not treated as dies non. He was asked to make representation, if any, within a period of 15 days. He submitted his representation, which was not found favourable and the Disciplinary Authority passed orders dated 4.11.2006 treating the said period as dies non.