Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 116 OF 2014 IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 9454/2013

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal                    …..Petitioner

            Versus

Sumit Bose & Another                               ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. This  contempt  petition  is  filed  complaining  that  the  

respondents  have willfully disobeyed the order  of this  Court  

dated 22nd November, 2013 and, therefore, prayed that the  

respondents  be  punished  for  contempt  and  also  direct  the  

respondents to implement  the judgment  of this Court dated  

22nd November, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 9454 of 2013.

2. The brief factual background of the above Civil Appeal No.  

9454 of 2013 is as follows:-

The applicant herein is an Officer of the Indian Revenue  

Service who was kept under suspension on certain allegations  

1

Page 2

of  misconduct  on  28.12.1999.   On  the  basis  of  the  said  

allegations,  criminal  cases  are  also  pending  against  the  

applicant.  In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings,  

the  applicant's  suspension  continued  for  a  long  period.  

Eventually,  the  applicant  challenged  two  orders  dated  

12.1.2012  and  3.2.2012  by  which  his  suspension  was  

continued in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 on the file of the Central  

Administrative  Tribunal,  Principal  Bench,  New Delhi.   By  its  

order  dated  1.6.2012,  the  Tribunal  allowed  the  above  

mentioned O.A..  The operative portion of the order reads as  

follows:-

"Considering  the  totality  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  are  of  the  considered  opinion that (i) the directions of the Tribunal issued to the  respondents in OA NO. 2842/2010 decided on 16.12.2011  have not been complied with in both letter and spirit while  passing  the  impugned  orders  dated  12.01.2012  and  03.02.2012;  and  (ii)  the  continuance  of  the  applicants  suspension is not tenable.  In the result, the orders dated  12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 are quashed and set aside with  direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension and  to  reinstate  him in  service.   The  applicant  would  be  entitled to legally admissible consequential benefits.

We make it very clear that taking note of the grave  charges leveled against him, the applicant may be posted  in a  non-sensitive post  where  the  Competent  Authority  considers that he would have neither access to the relevant  records  nor  would  have  opportunity  to  influence  the  witnesses.  We also further add that if at any point of time  in future the criminal trial proceedings commence by the  trial  Court,  the  respondents  would  have  the  liberty  to  consider  the  possibility  of  keeping  the  officer  under  suspension  at  that  point  of  time  if  the  facts  and  circumstances so warrant."

2

Page 3

Aggrieved  by  the  said  order,  the  respondent  herein  

preferred the writ petition(c) no. 5247 of 2012 before the Delhi  

High Court which was dismissed in limine by a judgment dated  

17.9.2012.

Not  satisfied  with  the  said  judgment,  the  respondents  

approached  this  Court  in  SLP(C)  No.  30368  of  2012  which  

eventually came to be numbered as Civil Appeal No. 9454 of  

2013.

This Court by its judgment dated 22.11.2013 dismissed the  

said appeal.

3. The grievance  of  the  petitioner  in  the  contempt  is  that  

though he succeeded in O.A. No. 495 of 2012 which order was  

confirmed both by the High Court as well as by this Court, the  

respondents  have  not  given  him  "legally  admissible  

consequential  benefits"  as  directed  in  the  Order  of  the  

Administrative Tribunal.

4. According  to  the  petitioner,  the  "legally  admissible  

consequential benefits" are two - (1) in view of the fact that the  

Tribunal quashed the orders of extension of the suspension of  

the petitioner dated 12.1.2012 and 3.2.2012, the petitioner is  

3

Page 4

entitled for the salary and other allowances applicable to his  

office with effect from 12.1.2012; (2) the petitioner is entitled  

to be considered for promotion to the next higher post in view  

of the fact that during the long pendency of his suspension,  

many officers junior to him in service had been promoted.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional  

Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is not entitled  

for the full salary with effect from 12.1.2012.  In view of certain  

departmental  circulars,  it  is  open  to  the  Department  to  

examine and decide what are the appropriate amounts which  

are required to be paid to the petitioner.  Learned ASG further  

submitted that the right of the petitioner to considerations of  

the promotion of the next higher post cannot be the subject  

matter  of  this  present  contempt  petition  as  it  was  not  the  

subject matter of the original application no. 495 of 2012.

6. Thirdly,  learned  ASG  submitted  that  pursuant  to  the  

directions of the Tribunal  as confirmed up to this court,  the  

petitioner was reinstated into service. He was relieved from his  

original  posting  at  Delhi  and  was  given  a  posting  to  West  

Bengal  CCA  by  an  Order  dated  10th  January,  2014.  

Consequent upon which, the petitioner was relieved from his  

earlier posting on 16th February, 2014. The order relieving him  

4

Page 5

had been duly served on him on 16th January, 2014.  Petitioner  

did  not  chose to report at  the newly posted station instead  

chose to challenge the posting order in a fresh O.A. No. 178 of  

2014  before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Delhi  and  

obtained  ex-parte  orders  of  status  quo  on  the  

misrepresentation  that  he  had  still  not  been  relieved  from  

Delhi CCA.

7. With regard to his submission pertaining to the entitlement  

of the petitioner for back wages, the Government of India in  

the Ministry of Finance by its order dated 6th January, 2014  

held that the revocation of the suspension would not entitle the  

petitioner the claim of back wages.  Learned ASG relied upon  

the departmental instructions contained in Fundamental Rule  

54B  in  support  of  the  decision  of  the  Government.   The  

relevant portion of the Fundamental Rules is as follows:-

Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment  of service on reinstatement after suspension. - 1. When a  Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated  or  would  have  been  so  reinstated  but  for  his  retirement(including  premature  retirement)  while  under  suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement  shall consider and make a specific order-

(a)  regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to  the  Government  servant  for  the  period  of  suspension  ending with reinstatement or  the  date  of  his  retirement  (including premature retirement), as the case may be; and

(b)  whether or not the said period shall be treated  as a period spent on duty."

5

Page 6

8. We are not able to agree with the submission made by  

learned ASG as that the rule has no application to those cases  

where the suspension order  is  quashed by judicial  or quasi-

judicial  body.   Therefore,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

petitioner is  entitled for his pay and other  allowances w.e.f.  

12th  January,  2012.   However,  in  view of  the  fact  that  the  

petitioner did not report to service pursuant to the order dated  

10th  January,  2014  and  obtained  interim  orders  from  the  

Administrative  Tribunal,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

entitlement for the receipt of the salary w.e.f. 10.1.2014 would  

depend upon the outcome of the O.A.  We make it clear that as  

of now, he is entitled to salary and other allowances with effect  

from 12.1.2012 to 10.1.2014.

9. Coming to the question of entitlement of the petitioner's  

case for consideration for promotion to the next higher post, it  

has rightly been pointed out by learned ASG that the question  

cannot be properly the subject matter of the contempt petition.  

If the petitioner has any grievance, he is entitled to approach  

the appropriate forum seeking such relief as he is entitled in  

law.

6

Page 7

10. With these observations, the contempt petition is disposed  

of.  The respondents shall pay the above mentioned amounts  

to  which  the  petitioner  is  entitled  within  a  period  of  two  

months.  

……………………………………J.   (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………………………J.   (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; February 28, 2014.

7