Abdul Laish v. K.Murugan

07.8.2023.

ap 01 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) CPAN 27 of 2023 in WPA 131 of 2022 Shri Abdul Laish Vs.

Shri K. Murugan Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... For the petitioner.

Mr. Vivekananda Bose Mr. Soham De Dhara Mr. Ratikanta Pal Mr. Alisham Venkatesh ... For the alleged contemnor.

It has been alleged that respondent authorities have acted in violation of the order dated September 22, 2022 passed in WPA 131 of 2022. By the said order, this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to defend his case by a retired government servant of his choice. It was further observed in the said order that it was expected that the disciplinary proceedings should be completed as early as possible.

An appeal was carried by the State to a Division Bench against the said order.

The appeal Court affirmed the order dated September 22, 2022 with an observation that the relevant bank should be free to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six

months from the date of communication of this order.

It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor that this contempt application is not maintainable before this Court as it should be heard by the Division Bench, which passed some additional directions while affirming the order of this Court dated September 22, 2022.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, relied on a Special Bench judgment of this Court passed in CPAN 26 of 2022 (Shri Sailesh Kumar vs. Ms. Smitha R & Anr.). It is crucial to note the reference and the answers given by the Special Bench. The following questions were referred to the Special Bench: (a) Will the doctrine of merger be applied to confer an exclusive jurisdiction on a Division Bench to entertain contempt application where the order of the Single Bench is either upheld in toto and/or the appeal against an order of the Single Bench is dismissed simplicitor?

(b) Is the jurisdiction of the Division Bench and a Single Bench in

such cases co-extensive insofar as the contempt applications are concerned?"

The Special Bench answered the reference as follows:

(i) In case of an affirmation of an order of Single Bench passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction either in Original side or the Appellate side, the contempt would lie before the Single Bench alleging the violation of the directions of orders passed by him.

(ii) In case of reversal, modification and setting aside the order of the Single Bench in an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the Division Bench, the contempt application would lie before the Judges constituting a Division Bench who passed the order.

(iii) In the event, an undertaking is given by the party to the proceeding before the Single Judge to do or not to do a certain thing and challenge to an order

could not yield in reversal and/or modification of the original order is recorded the contempt would lie to a Judge before whom such undertaking was given."

Since it is the principal grievance of the petitioner that despite direction, the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded within six months' time limit as framed by the Division Bench, this contempt application is not maintainable before this Court and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, this order will not prevent the applicant from filing an appropriate application in accordance with law.

According, CPAN 27 of 2023 is dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)