Subrat Kumar Sahoo v. Mumbai University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 283 OF 2024 in WRIT PETITION NO. 10472 OF 2022 Subrat Kumar Sahoo ... Petitioner versus MR. Thakur Jitendra Singh, Secretary, Thakur Educational Trust and anr.

.... Respondents Mr. Prashant Nayak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Arun Panickar along with Mr. Vinay Nair, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

P.C. :

1.

The petitioner claims that respondents have failed and neglected to comply with the order dated 27th September 2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10472 of 2022. 2.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court by passing above order had directed conduct of fresh inquiry against the petitioner and during the period till his services are terminated, he was directed to be paid subsistence allowance as per rules/regulations. The petitioner contends that the respondent-college did not conduct a lawful inquiry and as such committed contempt of the order Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date:

2024.09.13 18:53:53 +0530 SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM of this Court. Similarly, the grievance is made with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance and it is further claimed that subsistence 1/6

allowance sought to be offered by the respondents was meagre and, hence, it was refused by the petitioner. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by this Court dated 27th September 2023, though does not mention in operative part about conducting fresh inquiry, however, as observed in the body of the order, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to conduct fresh inquiry and to pay subsistence allowance during the period of inquiry till his services are terminated. It is argued that the respondents were duty bound under this order to make payment of subsistence allowance, however, an amount of Rs.4,14,780/- only was offered. This according to him amounts to contempt of court.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the said contention by drawing attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court, wherein according to him, there is no direction to conduct any fresh inquiry. It is his submission that was what directed to these respondents was to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per rules/regulations during the suspension period from 3rd July 2018 till the date of passing of final order in inquiry. He drew attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on record which indicates that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 10th January 2023 and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he can challenge the said order but the proceedings of contempt are not tenable. He further drew attention of the Court to the correspondence entered into between the parties with regard 2/6

to the payment of subsistence allowance. It is contented that this Court has categorically directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance as per the rules/regulations. There is no doubt about the requirement by the employee to furnish certificate of not being gainfully employed to receive subsistence allowance. It is submitted though at a later point of time, such certificate was issued, the respondents have obtained evidence under Right to Information Act 2005 indicating that the petitioner was gainfully employed and had substantially earned during the period of his suspension. It is, therefore, submitted that these issues cannot be gone into contempt petition.

4.

The law on the point of contempt of the order of the court is settled to state that there should be willful disobedience of the order of the Court and in order to treat same as "contempt". At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court in writ petition No.10472 of 2022, which is reproduced thus :

"18. I accordingly proceed to pass the following Order: i) The Tribunal's Order setting aside termination and granting liberty for conduct of enquiry is upheld.

ii) Tribunal's direction for payment of back wages only in the event of failure to conclude inquiry within 8 months is set aside. iii) Respondent-Management shall treat Petitioner as under deemed suspension from 03 July 2018 till finalization of enquiry and passing of final order. He shall be paid subsistence allowance as per Rules/Regulations during the suspension period from 03 July 2018 till the date of passing of final order in the inquiry. The payment of subsistence allowance shall be made by the 3/6

Respondent-management within a period of four weeks from today.

iv) Petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the fresh enquiry as well as the fresh order of punishment by filing appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal. All contentions in that regard are left open." 5.

Bare perusal of this order clearly indicates that there was no direction to respondents to conduct fresh inquiry. In fact what has been held is that the Tribunal's order of setting aside the termination and granting liberty for conducting inquiry is upheld. From submissions made by rival parties, it is clear that two different interpretation of above order is sought to be done. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the State of Bihar versus Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR-1961-SC-221, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:

"The second contention urged was that even if on a proper construction of the order, read in the light of the relevant pleadings, the State Government was directed to abstain from publishing a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, still, if the order was ambiguous and equivocal and reasonably capable of two interpretations, a party who acted on the basis of one of such interpretations could not be held to have willfully disobeyed the order. Stated in these terms, the contention appears unexceptionable. For its being accepted in any particular case, however, two conditions have to be satisfied : (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order.'

This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and Ors. v. V.K. Kapoor and Anr. [2007) 4/6

12SCALE 549] {See also Maruti Udyog Limitedv. Mahinder C. Mehta and Ors. [(2007) 11 SCALE 750]}"

In absence of specific directions, it would matter of interpretation whether fresh arguing is directed to be held. Since two interpretations are possible here in this case, by following judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be held there is contempt of this order by not conducting a fresh inquiry. In any case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by his termination on the said ground, it is open for him to challenge the same in accordance with law.

6.

Insofar as the contention of the petitioner about non-payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, prima facie perusal of the record and, in particular, correspondence filed along with reply clearly indicates that respondents have always offered him subsistence allowance provided the petitioner submits certificate about not being gainfully employed. The correspondence indicates that initially no such certificate was issued, it came to be issued at later point of time. Apart from this, there is material on record to indicate that the petitioner could be gainfully employed during this period and has earned substantial amount. In such circumstances, the issue about the correctness of the offer of subsistence allowance, cannot be gone into in contempt petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of subsistence allowance, it is open for him to take appropriate proceedings as provided by law. Suffice it to say that no case is made out by petitioner to hold that there is willful disobedience of 5/6

order passed by this court. Hence, contempt petition stands dismissed. 7.

This Court has come across with the contempt petitions which are essentially filed for pressuring the respondents to succumb to the demands. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case is one of such proceedings. This Court, therefore, would be justified in dismissing the petition with exemplary costs, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is an employee who is raising issue about his termination etc, this Court refrains from imposing any costs. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) 6/6