UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the Union of India and Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (Personnel), Government of India. They are primarily aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 25th August, 2009 passed in CCPA 96 of 2007, arising out of O.A. No. 477 of 2001, as contained in Annexure -'4A'. By that order, the Tribunal has held that there has been a wilful disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal dated 25th May, 2007 passed in O.A. No. 477 of 2001 (Annexure -'1') and Petitioner No. 2, the Secretary, has committed contempt of the order of the Tribunal. He was given eight weeks' time to purge the contempt, failing which he has been directed to appear in person to face further proceeding in the contempt matter. In the situation created by the order noted above, the Petitioners, apparently on a second thought, have also decided to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 25th May, 2007 as contained in Annexure -'1'.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent/applicant has submitted that reconsideration made by the order contained in Annexure -'2' is without any regard to the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph -28 and more particularly in paragraph -31, where the Tribunal has expressed the view that the Respondents "erred in treating the applicant as a domicile of Bihar as against that of Jharkhand on the basis of one document only and to allot him to Bihar Cadre." Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further objected to challenge made to the order contained in Annexure '1' on the ground that the Petitioners accepted that order and passed a reasoned order contained in Annexure -'2' and, now, when they have been found guilty of contempt, they should not be permitted to turn around and challenge the order passed in Original Application contained in Annexure -'1'. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also made a strong challenge to the propriety of challenging the order contained in Annexure -'4A' on the ground that the order is interlocutory and no order of punishment has yet been passed, rather Petitioners have been given an opportunity to purge themselves of the contempt within the fixed time. He has also objected to the maintainability of two prayers made in one writ petition so as to challenge the order contained in Annexue -'1' as well as Annexure -'4A'.