Of India, Aaiclas Building, Ist Floor, Cargo, Terminal v. For

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 08/08/2025

1. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated

02.07.2025 whereby, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, "CAT") has imposed cost on the [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-11631/2025] petitioner No.1, Rs.5,000/- to be deducted from his salary. On account of the fact that in the earlier round of litigation, the CAT had directed the officer to decide the representation filed by the concerned applicant by passing a speaking order. It would be apposite to quote the words in the directions dated 10.06.2025 of CAT in O.A./309/2025:- "In the light of above, respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 09.05.2025 filed by the applicant specially dealing with the contentions that he had sought his transfer to Jaipur on his own request and merely after ten months since his joining at Jaipur he has been transferred again, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, the operation of the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 shall remain stayed. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed off with directions as above. No costs."

2. Mr. S. Suriyanarayanan who is holding the post of General Manager (HR), however, thought it fit to decide the representation by passing a following order:- "2. As per direction of Central Administrative Tribunal and its observation that the said representation dated 09.05.2025 of Shri Rahul Vijay, Sr. Manager (Fin.), Jaipur Airport and his contentions that he had sought his transfer to Jaipur on his own request & merely after ten months since his joining at Jaipur Airport and he has been transferred again, has once again been examined entirely by the competent authority but not acceded to. [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-11631/2025]

3. Further, it is observed that the contents of representation dated 13.05.2025 & 09.05.2025 are one and the same and the representation dated

13.05.2025 has already been disposed off by the competent authority vide letter no. A.22012/01/2025-ES-IV[258740/71697]

12.06.2025.

4. In view of the above, the representation dated 09.05.2025 now considered and disposed off compliance No.O.A.300/2025(Jaipur) dated 10.06.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur, as there is no merit in the case.

5. Accordingly, the above officer is required to join at his new place of posting i.e. CHQ (IA) immediately. The other terms & conditions of transfer order dated 05.05.2025 will remain same.

6. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."

3. When the matter come up before the CAT in the second round, the learned Member of CAT passed the following order on

02.07.2025:- "The respondents without application of mind and without acting upon this Tribunal's specific directions to deal with the contentions of the applicant that he was being transferred vide the impugned order merely after ten months of his joining at Jaipur where he was transferred on his own request, summarily disposed off his representation. Joint General Manager (HR), Airport Authority of India passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing his representation by a non speaking order despite, specific directions, as mentioned [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-11631/2025] above, passed by this Tribunal vide order dated

10.06.2025. The impugned order dated 27.06.2025 is hereby quashed for the reasons cited above and a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on respondent no.3 (Joint General manager (HR), Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gnadhi Bhawan, Block A, Safdarjung, New Delhi-11003) which shall be deducted from his salary and deposited with the C.A.T. Bar Association Jaipur, to make expenditure only for the welfare of the member of the Bar viz. for immediate relief to the needy Lawyer/Advocate who dies in harness or sustain permanent disability rendering him unable to practice further or to overcome the disability by getting prosthetic device(s) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No.3 is directed to submit proof of deposit of the cost with the Registrar of this Bench within a period of one week thereafter. In case the cost is not deposited and proof of the same is not submitted as stipulated above, the Registrar of this Bench shall bring the same to the notice of this Court for further direction. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh detailed speaking order as per the specific directions given by this Tribunal vide order dated

10.06.2025 in Original Application no.309/2025 within a period of three weeks, Till then the operation of the order dated 27.06.2025 and

05.05.2025 is stayed. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed off with directions, No costs. " [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-11631/2025]

4. The petitioner No.1 has preferred the writ petition along with Union of India and other, petitioners challenging the said order. It was argued that the CAT was not required to impose cost of Rs.5,000/- and deducted from the salary of the petitioner No.1. It was stated that the order rejecting the representation ought not have been interfered with.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and find that the petitioner No.1 had not passed a speaking order at all, in spite of directions of the CAT and had relied on its earlier decision of rejecting the representation to decide the fresh representation. While contentions of the respondent-applicant had been noticed, but without giving any reasons, the order was passed. We failed to observe that the amount imposed as cost on the petitioner No.1 deserves to be enhanced and therefore, before taking any action, in the interest of justice, we called the concerned Officer to give him a right of hearing. This was so, as the counsel who was appearing for the petitioner No.1 was also standing counsel of Airport Authority of India who is required to implement the order of the CAT.

6. We feel that in cases like such where personal cost has been imposed on an individual officer, his cost cannot be taken up by Union of India or other Government Agencies and he alone could have raised his grievance before us. In the said spirit, we called the concerned Officer who appeared in person and admitted his mistake and submitted his apology, which we had not accepted in the short order passed on 08.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-11631/2025]

7. It is noticed that there are huge number of contempt proceedings pending before the High Court on account of non- compliance. We find that the compliance of Court's orders is not being made. There is a general scant towards the orders passed by the Tribunal and they are rarely implemented. In the present case also, the officer has not bothered to even deposit the amount of Rs.5,000/- as imposed on him. There was no stay granted by this Court.

8. The approach of the officer is completely mechanical, Court's directions are not taking care of. It appears that the officer did not even bother to see the directions asking him to pass a speaking order, although he understands the meaning of speaking order. If the Court's orders and tribunals' orders are not followed or obeyed, wrong message would percolate in general public and faith in judiciary and judicial democratic system would be lowered down and the esteem of the Court would also be lowered if the orders are not obeyed.

9. In the matter of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 57 of 2014), the Apex Court vide its order dated 6th May, 2014 took into account the event of disobedience of courts' order seriously and observed that disobedience of orders of a Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law, on which the judicial system rests. Judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs. Howsoever grave the effect may be, is no answer for non-compliance of a judicial order. Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, Courts have the power to enforce [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-11631/2025] compliance of judicial orders, and also, the power to punish for contempt.

10. In Subrata Roy Sahara's case (supra), the Apex Court referred to three previous decisions, i.e. firstly, K.A. Ansari & another v. Indian Airlines Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 164), secondly, Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India ((2012) 1 SCC 273) and thirdly, Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1999 4 SCC 409). In K.A. Ansari's matter (supra), the Apex Court held that the respondent, Indian Airlines, was obliged to obey and implement the direction of the Single Judge of the High Court. If they had any doubt or if the order was not clear, it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the order. The Apex Court further observed that without challenging the said direction or seeking clarification, the Indian Airlines could not circumvent the same, on any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the Court, howsoever grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-implementation. In the matter of Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra) the Apex Court, while taking serious note of the tendency of disobedience of court's order, observed that disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The Apex Court further [2025:RJ-JP:31179-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-11631/2025] observed that Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance of its orders in future. In Supreme Court Bar Association' case (supra), a five Judge Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, while explaining the power of the courts to administer justice in orderly and effective manner, held that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law and protect the administration of justice from being maligned or interfered with. The Apex Court further observed that in the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of courts should not be imperiled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, we find that the cost imposed on the petitioner No.1 Mr. S. Suriyanarayanan, Joint General Manager (HR), Airport Authority of India, CHQ, New Delhi ought to be enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.25,000/- as he has deliberately and knowing fully well the repercussions passed orders resulting in respondent’s unnecessarily coming in second round of litigation. The amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be deducted from his personal salary and same shall paid to the respondent within one month.

12. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV KUMAR-N.GANDHI/430-s