ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This order or judgment would not be completed and is only an appendix to the order of the Court dated 26 May, 1990, which was a repercus sion to the framing of the charges against the parties arrayed, but the record bears out that in unionism the parties who were under notice acquiesced, conceded and re quested the Court that no charges be framed as they understood the order. As this submission was made on behalf of the contemners when they themselves pleaded thatthey were clearly conscious of the issues before the Court, the matter proceeded into hearing.

(2.) THIS case has been pending since very long. It ought to have been concluded earlier, but it did not as the Court in be tween sat in other jurisdictions, thus, the matter had to be taken up only on the days when the Court could convene specially when the Court was shown on Board with the case.

(3.) THE issues before the Court as the matter went into hearing then became one of the degree of contempt, which may have been occasioned by (1) the Union of India, (2) the then Secretary, Defence, Government of India, Mr. Naresh Chandra, I. A. S and (3) Brigadier P. K. Gupta, the then Sub-Area Commander, Allahabad. THE party played by the three on the issues which are before the Court in this civil contempt action is as below: (1) THE obligation of the Urro" of India to ensure that the order of the High Court of 7 April, 1989 was complied with, (2) THE personal responsibility of Mr. Naresh Chandra, I. A. S. as Secretary, Defenceand (3) THE answerability of Brigadier P. K. Gupta, as head of the formation to set the process in motion to give effect to the order of the High Court dated 7th April, 1989. THE Court will take up the cases of the opposite parties one by one. Before that all that needs to be kept'in mind is that the petitioner being at the relevant time a serving army officer filed a writ petition complaining that the procedure which prescribes for redressal of grievances is not being adhered to and despite orders of the Court on his writ petitions on more than one occasion his representations are being disposed of without application of the mind with one phrase or one word orders like 'disposed of or 'rejected'. In the circumstances, the petitioner in yet a subsequent Writ Petition No. 8545 of 1989 received an order of 7th April, 1989, already referred to. This time, the High Court reminded the respondents that the complaint of the petitioner must be con sidered with objectivity and reasons must be recorded on the result of the petitioner's representation. Secondly, the representation ought to see result within thirty days. THE reason, the High Court had indicated time and the manner of its decision is that the petitioner was to retire on 30 June, 1989 and in the circumstances, whatever may be the decision on the petitioner's representation before the Central Government the result ought to be handed down to the petitioner before his retirement so that he knows where he stands in service and whatever be his com plaint in service.