IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Cont.Case(C).No.944 of 2006(S) --------------------------------- ------------------------------ ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.35170/2000(J) DATED 12/12/2005 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN O.P.:- ------------------------------------------------- V.JAGADEESH KUMAR, S/O.VEERIAH, AGED 41 YEARS, EX.M.C.A.A., H.NO.191741 A, INDIAN NAVY, COCHIN NAVAL BASE, NOW RESIDING AT THIRUCHIRAPILLY, C/O.MR.G.VEERAIAH,159/III RD DRAWING, EZHIL NAGAR, BHEL TOWNSHIP (POST), THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-620 014. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P.:- ------------------------------------------------------------- GOUTHAM CHATTERJI, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER), SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110 011. BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J. -------------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C).No.944 of 2006-S --------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. Petitioner in O.P.No.35170 of 2000 is the complainant in this contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. (2) In this contempt petition, the petitioner/complainant alleges that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court and, therefore, requests us to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondent and punish him for the so-called wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court. (3) While entertaining the contempt petition, we had directed issue of notice on the respondent. Respondent is served and he is represented by Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Assistant Solicitor General. (4) This Court, while disposing of O.P.No.35170 of 2000, was pleased to quash Exhibit P26 order and had further directed the respondent/Union of India to reconsider Exhibit P9 appeal in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The Court was pleased to observe that the petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefits including arrears of pension, etc. The order passed by this Court reads as under: “Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is only in the interest of justice that the first respondent reconsiders the whole matter, so that the petitioner could be granted the benefit atleast of the service already rendered by him. The original petition is accordingly disposed of quashing Cont.Case (C)No.944/2006-S - 2 - Ext.P26 and directing the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P9 in the light of the observations made in this judgment and to pass fresh orders in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in that view of the matter the other prayers regarding compensation etc. are declined. The relief is confined only to the reconsideration of Ext.P9 for the purpose of pensionary benefits in respect of the service already rendered by the petitioner. The consequential benefits including arrears of pension etc. shall be disbursed to the petitioner within another two months”. (5) Pursuant to the orders and directions issued by this Court, the respondent has passed an order dated 17th August, 2006. The same is as under: “In compliance with the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam dated 12th December, 2005 given in OP.No.35170 of 2000(J), the petition dated 24th December, 1999 submitted by V.Jagadeesh Kumar, ex-MCAA II (No.191741A) against the sentence awarded to him by the Court Martial has been re-considered by the Government. 2. Keeping in view the depositions made by both ex-Sailor and Sqn Ldr GG Kumar during the Court Martial proceedings as also other facts and circumstances of the case, it has been found that the both the individuals were responsible for the fight that took place between them on 15th February, 1999 and that Sqn Ldr GG Kumar, exercising utmost restraint, should have acted in a manner becoming of his rank. The sentence awarded to ex-Sailor Jagadeesh Kumar by the Court Martial has been found to be harsh and not commensurate with his guilt. 3. Now, therefore, the Government, in terms of the above- referred judgement of the High Court of Kerala and in exercise of the powers conferred vide Section 163(1)(c) of the Navy Act, 1957, is pleased to re-consider the sentence awarded to ex-Sailor Jagadeesh Kumar by the Court Martial and award him the penalty of dismissal from the Naval service with pensionary benefits in the rank of MCAA-II”. (6) In the counter affidavit, the respondent has further stated that whatever pensionary benefits that has to be paid to the petitioner has Cont.Case (C)No.944/2006-S - 3 - already been settled. (7) The one and only direction that was issued by this Court to the first respondent is to re-consider Exhibit P9 appeal in the light of the observations made by the Court in the course of the order. After disposal of the Original Petition, the respondent has passed the order dated 17.08.2006. That only means, the respondent has complied with the orders and directions issued by this Court. Further, the respondent has stated that they have paid all the pensionary benefits that are payable to the petitioner. (8) In our opinion, in view of the orders passed by the respondent dated 17.08.2006, there is substantial compliance with the orders and directions issued by this Court. Since there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court, we do not intend to take cognizance of this contempt proceedings. Accordingly, we drop the contempt proceedings. (9) However, we reserve liberty to the petitioner/complainant, if he so desires, to question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the respondent dated 17.08.2006 or any other grievance which is not covered by Annexure-A1 judgment, before the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.M.Joseph Judge vku/-