SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3163 of 1997. D/d. 7.4.1999

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

J.R. Dhiman - Respondent

Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Rule 24 - Scope of - Order made by Tribunal on application for contempt issued goes far beyond original order - Directions issued to revisional authority the manner in which order has to be made - When originally order made by revisional authority was set aside and matter was remitted for fresh consideration, certainly after consideration of all aspects it could pass an appropriate order in accordance with law - Such directions do not fall within scope of Rule 24 - Order made by Tribunal quashed.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - The respondent, who was a Pharmacist at the relevant time, was removed from service by an order made pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry initiated against him. An appeal was preferred by him against that order and the appellate authority upheld the order made by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, revision proceedings were initiated and the revisional authority reduced the punishment from removal from service to that of reduction in time scale of pay of the two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect with a direction that the appellant (respondent herein) may be allowed to be posted at Delhi area but outside the Central Hospital as well as Queens Road Hospital, Delhi. That order was challenged by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal by an order made on 28.9.1993 allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the revisional authority and directed the revisional authority to pass appropriate order afresh on merit in accordance with law in the light of the observation made in the course of the order to the effect that :

"The revisional authority should decide the revision application of the respondent afresh after taking into consideration the specific plea of the petitioner that the enquiry officer could not take into account the statements of the witnesses recorded in the fact finding enquiry. It shall decide any other plea which the petitioner may raise before it within a period of three months."

2. Thereafter an application was filed before the Tribunal stating that the respondents had not complied with the order made by the Tribunal earlier as a punishment of removal from service had been imposed against him. The Tribunal after considering the contentions on either side ultimately stated as follows :

"The true spirit of the order, if it is still not clear to the respondent is made clear as follows :-

The General Manager has to consider the plea of the petitioner in the revision petition that the order of the disciplinary authority and the enquiry proceedings is vitiated and take an appropriate decision on the point. If the General Manager finds on such consideration that the finding of guilt is still unaffected, pass a final order maintaining the penalty of reduction in pay awarded by the earlier order of the General Manager which was impugned in the OA. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and the fresh order on the revision petition shall be passed and communicated within one month from today as the order is pronounced today in the open court. List this contempt petition for reporting compliance of the above said direction and for further steps on 22.7.1996."

3. This order is in challenge before us. On 28.4.1997, this Court, while granting leave to appeal stayed the operation of the order pending disposal of the appeal, however making it clear that it is open to the respondent to challenge the order of removal from service, if he is, otherwise, entitled to do so in law. The order of removal from service made by the respondent has been challenged separately and we are not concerned with the same in these proceedings.

4. The contention put forth before us is that under Rule 24 of the Central Administrative (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the Tribunal may make such orders or give such direction as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. A perusal of the order made by the Tribunal on the application for contempt goes far beyond the original order and issued directions to the revisional authority the manner in which the order has to be made when originally the order made by the revisional authority was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after taking into note of the pleadings raised in the original application before the Tribunal and any fresh contention that may be advanced. It is clear that the order made by the Tribunal is that it could not have passed an order other than what had been passed earlier, namely, one of a penalty reducing the time scale of pay of the two stages for a period of two years and certain other directions. It is not permissible at all for the Tribunal to direct the revisional authority to pass such a punishment alone and any higher punishment could not be imposed. When the order made by the revisional authority had been set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration certainly, after consideration of all aspects of the matter it could pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

5. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has no justification to give direction as made in the order under appeal. Such an order does not fall within the scope of Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Hence, the order made by the Tribunal to this extent shall stand quashed. It is made clear that if any order is made in any other proceedings initiated by the respondent it will not be affected by this order.

6. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.