INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. ANANDH SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 25/4/2023 whereby the modification application filed in Writ-A No.4878 of 2021 has been allowed, clarifying the order dtd. 24/9/2021 for disposal of the said writ petition that the said order would not stand against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the penalty which has been awarded to the writ petitioner/applicant had been accepted. It was also held that the respondents/appellants herein while agreeing for amicable settlement leading to passing of the order dtd. 24/9/2021 had not only misinterpreted the said order, but proceeded to pass a fresh order taking into account the earlier infractions which were given quietus vide order dtd. 24/9/2021.

(2.) For the stand taken by the respondents/appellants herein in the counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.4492 of 2023, filed subsequently, it was held that the said stand of the respondents /appellants being contrary to the essence of the order dtd. 24/9/2021 would amount to contempt. The modification application has been disposed of by clarifying that the essence of the order dtd. 24/9/2021 was that the petitioner shall not be punished and the order impugned in the said writ petition shall stand wiped out except to the extent that the petitioner would have to suffer the stoppage of three increments and nothing more.

(3.) Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-institution would submit that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the scope of the application by which the modification of the judgment and order dtd. 24/9/2021 had been sought. It was argued that the statement in the counter affidavit filed in the subsequent writ petition could only be examined therein and, in no case, the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in subsequent petition could be taken as contempt of the order passed in the previous writ petition, that too based on the averments in the modification application, without even granting time to the appellant to file a reply to the same.