IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 705 of 2011(S) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16342/2009 DATED 12/06/2009 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SUDHIR RAJAN, AGED 36, S/O.K.K. RAJAN, 'AMMINI', KONANGATH, P.O. MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE-673 602. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEBASIS CHATERJEE, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. 2. LT. COL. JULIUS GEORGE (RTD.), AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. 3. SRI.MADHUSOODANAN P.G., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (GA), INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL, SMT.MANJU RAJAN. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs Con.Case(C).No. 705 of 2011(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12/06/2009. ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND BECOME ULTIMATE UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS BY ORDER DATED 21/10/2009. ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01/06/2011. ANNEXURE-A4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED IN THIS REGARD DATED 04/06/2011. ANNEXURE-A5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/06/2011. ANNEXURE-A6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE R1(a): COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 15/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No. 705 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 interim order and have thereby rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. The petitioner herein was an employed as Junior Assistant in the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode. His appointment was cancelled as per order dated 8.6.2009 on the ground that he did not possess 55% marks in the qualifying examination. He thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.16342 of 2009 in this Court challenging that order. By Annexure-A1 interim order passed on 12.6.2009, this Court while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondents therein to retain the petitioner in service and to permit him to discharge his duties for a period of one month. By Annexure-A2 order passed on 21.10.2009, the said direction was extended until further orders. The writ petition thereafter came up for hearing on 1.6.2011. On that day, taking note of the fact that one of the contentions raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner was not heard before his COC. No.705 of 2011 2 appointment was cancelled, a learned single Judge of this Court passed Annexure A3 order dated 1.6.2011 directing the first respondent in the writ petition to issue notice to the petitioner herein and pass a considered order. This Court also directed that the notice shall be issued within one week, the petitioner shall file his objections within one week thereafter and orders shall be passed within two weeks thereafter. 3. The Chief Administrative Officer of the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, the second respondent herein thereupon issued Annexure – A5 office memorandum dated 23.6.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposal to cancel his appointment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.6.2011. The second respondent thereafter passed Annexure A6 order dated 24.6.2011 cancelling the petitioner's appointment as Junior Assistant and directed that he be relieved from service subject to further orders in W.P.(C) No.16342 of 2009. It was also stated that Annexure A5 order is issued in supercession of the order dated 8.6.2009 which was impugned in the writ petition. Consequent thereon, the third respondent, the Senior Administrative Officer in the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode relieved the petitioner as per Annexure A6 order dated 24.6.2011. The instant contempt case COC. No.705 of 2011 3 has been filed alleging that that the order passed by the third respondent relieving the petitioner from duty is in violation of Annexures A1 and A2 interim orders whereby the respondents were directed to retain the petitioner in service and to permit him to discharge his duties until further orders. It is contended that even assuming that pursuant to Annexure-A3 interim order, the second respondent was entitled to pass Annexure-A5 order, that could not have been given effect to without seeking further orders of this Court. 4. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance. They have also filed separate counter affidavits. The respondents have stated that they were under the bona fide belief that in view of Annexure A3 order passed by this Court whereby the second respondent was permitted to pass an order after notice to the petitioner, they are entitled to pass further consequential orders and that was how Annexure-A6 order happened to be passed. The respondents have also stated that after the instant contempt case was filed, the petitioner filed I.A.No.10761 of 2011 in the writ petition seeking a stay of Annexure A6 interim order and that on that application, this Court has by order dated 8.7.2011, directed the respondents to retain the petitioner in service and to permit him to discharge his duties in terms of Annexure A1 interim order dated COC. No.705 of 2011 4 12.6.2009 and that thereupon Annexure R1(a) order dated 15.7.2011 was issued permitting the petitioner to rejoin the duty on 15.7.2011 and that by that order, the third respondent also directed that the period between 24.6.2011, when Annexure-A6 order was passed till 14.7.2011 will be treated as period spent on duty and that the petitioner will also be entitled to salary and allowances for the months of June and July, 2011 as per his entitlement. The respondents have also stated that they did not consciously intend to violate the interim orders passed by this Court, but had acted on the bona fide belief that on the terms of Annexure A3 order, they were entitled to pass Annexure -A6 order. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. In my opinion, as this Court had not specifically directed in Annexure-A3 order that any order passed pursuant thereto should be implemented only with the permission of this Court or after obtaining the further orders of this Court, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the earlier interim orders passed by this Court, evidenced by Annexures A1 and A2. That apart, by a separate order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service and the said direction has been complied with. In such circumstances, I am of the COC. No.705 of 2011 5 opinion that the explanation offered by the respondents in their counter affidavits as regards the circumstances in which Annexure-A6 order happened to be passed merits acceptance. I, therefore, find no grounds to proceed further with the contempt case. It is accordingly closed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.705 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 19th September, 2011 --------------------------------------