IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 73 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23275/2010 DATED .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- P.V.MOHANDAS,S/O. SRI. VAVA, AGED 58 YEARS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THRISSUR POSTAL DIVISION (UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) RESIDING AT 'REVATHY', CC NO.26/1358, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER NO.4 ------------------------------------ G. NAINAN, FATHERS NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018. BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ Cont. Case (C) No.73 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This contempt case is filed complaining that Annexure VIII order constitutes an act of contempt of this court. 2. The background facts are as follows: The petitioner herein is an employee of the Union of India in the Postal Department. Certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated in an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner and therefore remitted the matter to the appellate authority under the Rules applicable to the service of the petitioner with a direction to consider whether the petitioner can be given a lesser punishment than termination from service. Aggrieved by the same, the Department approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.23275 of 2010 without any success. 3. Thereafter the respondent considered the case of the petitioner and took a decision dated 23.12.2010. The relevant portion of the Cont. Case (C) No.73 of 2011 - 2 - said order reads as follows” “NOW THEREFORE, on appeal in connection with the orders of Hon.High Court of Kerala in WP(C)23275/2010 and after considering the reply submitted by the official dated 7.12.2010, I, G.Ninan, Post Master General, Central Region, Kochi 682 018, hereby order that Sri,P.V.Mohandas, retired Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Thrissur Postal division, be reinstated to service with immediate effect, reverting him to the cadre of Postal Assistant carrying pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2400 at the stage of Rs.5200/- for a period of 2 years with cumulative effect.” 4. The complaint in the instant contempt case is that such a decision of the respondent constitutes wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 1.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No.23275 of 2010. 5. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the punishment imposed by Annexure VIII order is harsher than the punishment initially imposed on the petitioner and therefore such a conclusion of the respondent virtually amounts to defiance of the orders of this Court. 6. We do not see any reason to proceed with the contempt case. The punishment imposed by the proceedings dated 23.12.2010 may be legally tenable or may not be tenable on the touchstone of proportionality which in our opinion cannot be a subject matter of debate in a contempt case. If for any reason, the petitioner is of the opinion that Cont. Case (C) No.73 of 2011 - 3 - the punishment now imposed under the proceedings dated 23.12.2010 is harsher than the punishment imposed earlier, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. The question whether a particular punishment is harsher than the punishment imposed earlier, in our view, is essentially a matter of opinion. Learned senior counsel submitted that the economic effect of the punishment now imposed would be much harsher on the petitioner than the economic effect of the punishment of compulsory retirement. 7. The direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal as affirmed by this Court by judgment dated 1.11.2010 is to provide a lesser punishment than the punishment of compulsory retirement. What is the distinction between a lesser punishment and harsher punishment is to be decided on consideration of various factors including the economic effect of the punishment and if such a consideration is required it cannot be said that the respondent is guilty of Contempt of Court in passing such an order. At the worst, there can be an error in law in reaching the conclusion such as the one reached by Annexure VIII. We do not see any reason to proceed with the contempt case. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the Cont. Case (C) No.73 of 2011 - 4 - petitioner to take appropriate steps to challenge the proceedings (Annexure VIII) before appropriate forum. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns