IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.647 of 2008 J.Murugesan Executive Engineer Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD) Krishnagiri division Krishnagiri District ... Petitioner Vs. Thiru.K.Deenabandhu, I.A.S., Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George Channai - 600 009 ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for deliberately committing the contempt by willful disobedience for not implementing the order of this Hon'ble court dated 25.03.2008 made in W.P.No.560 of 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Namasivayam For Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate O R D E R Heard Mr.AL.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent. The materials available on record were also perused. 2. The petitioner herein had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.560 of 2008 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein and the Chairman/Managing Director, TWAD, Chennai - 5 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Charge Memo No.5034/Estt.(DP-I)A2/97-19 dated 11.02.1998 of the Chairman/Managing Director, TWAD Board and the charges initiated in Charge Memo No.113457/Estt(DP)A3/2001 dated 28.01.2005 of the Chairman/Managing Director, TWAD Board and pass final orders. Though a larger relief had been prayed for in the writ petition, this court, by an order dated 25.03.2008, chose to issue a direction to the respondent herein to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 21.11.2007 and 11.12.2007 on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order of this court. Complaining that the above said direction has been willfully disobeyed, the petitioner has brought-forth this contempt petition for punishing the respondent for the alleged act of contempt. 3. It is true that the respondent did not pass any order on the above said representation till the filing of the contempt petition. Only after receipt of the notice in the contempt petition, the respondent has chosen to pass an order in letter No.11118/WS.3/2008-6 dated 22.08.2008 stating that the respondent was neither the competent disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority as per TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972 and that the competent authority, namely the Managing Director, TWAD Board had examined the request of the petitioner in detail and passed final orders. The relevant portion of the order of the respondent herein in letter dated 22.08.2008 is as under:- " 5. I am also to state that the Managing Director, TWAD Board and the Board of Directors are the Competent Disciplinary and Appellate Authority as per the TWAD Board Service Regulations 1972 (framed under TWAD Board Act 1970). The Managing Director, TWAD Board has examined your request in detail and passed final orders. The above position has also been conveyed to you in the letter third cited. 6. I am therefore to inform that the Board is the competent authority under the TWAD Board Service Regulations 1972 (framed under TWAD Board Act 1970) to pass orders on entertain the requests in your representations first cited. Accordingly I am to inform that your requests in the representations first cited have already been examined in detail by the Competent Authority, viz. Managing Director. TWAD Board on merits and that the Government cannot pass orders on your request." 4. The learned Government Advocate representing the respondent submits that the Secretary to Government is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority and that hence the completion of the disciplinary enquiry is not in the hands of the respondent. It is the further submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the said position was clarified in the order passed by the respondent on 22.08.2008 which was also communicated to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though an order had been passed by the disciplinary authority, namely the Managing Director of TWAD Board, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors; that the said appeal is yet to be disposed of and that the respondent cannot disown his liability by stating that the respondent is not the appellate authority for the simple reason that the respondent happens to be the chair-person of the Board of Directors. 6. However, it is brought to the notice of the court by the learned Government Advocate that, neither the Board of Directors nor the respondent in the capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors of TWAD Board have been made a party in the writ petition and that the direction to consider the representation was made against the respondent only in the capacity as the Secretary to Government and not in the capacity as Chairman of Board of Directors, TWAD Board. 7. It is the further contention of the learned Government Advocate that though the respondent, Secretary to the Government, incidentally happened to be the chairman of the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Board of Directors cannot take independent decision, apart from the collective decision of the Board of Directors and that in the absence of any specific direction to the TWAD Board itself, the petitioner cannot complain any violation of the order of this court. 8. The learned Government Advocate brings it to the notice of the court that the petitioner also wanted the respondent to expedite the hearing of a case instituted by CBCID in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is practically impossible; that if at all the petitioner wants expeditious disposal of the case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is open to him to make representation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for taking up the matter at an early date and that instead of doing it, the petitioner wants to cast the burden on the respondent to prevail upon the CBCID to take steps to expedite the disposal of the case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This court has to accept the above said contention of the learned Government Advocate that such a request made by the petitioner cannot be complied with and the same has been rightly rejected by respondent. 9. So far as the request for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, apart from the fact that the respondent has made it clear that the respondent is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority, it is also brought to the notice of this court that the disciplinary authority, namely the Managing Director, has already passed an order in the disciplinary case which has appealed against by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any specific direction against the appellate authority, namely the Board of Directors, the petitioner cannot proceed for contempt either against the respondent herein or against the Board of Directors. 10. In view of the above finding recorded to the effect that the respondent has not passed an order on the representation made by the petitioner within the time granted by this court, the petition for contempt cannot be stated to be totally devoid of merit. However, the respondent has chosen to pass an order on the representations of the petitioner, at least after the filing of the contempt petition. For the delay caused in passing the order, the respondent has also tendered unconditional apology. Though this court does have its reservations in accepting indiscriminately such apologies tendered after having flouted the orders of the court, in this case, due to the above facts and circumstances, this court feels that the apology tendered by the respondent has got to be accepted. 11. Accordingly, compliance is recorded and the contempt petition is closed. 28.08.2008 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No asr P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. asr/ Cont. Petn. No.647 of 2008 Dated : 28.08.2008