SHEIK AZGAR HUSSAIN Vs. KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Pleader has brought on record the order of the Revenue Department dated 21.06.2017 passed in relation to the petitioner. He submits at the Bar that due to some inter-departmental confusion, the order of this Court dated 22.03.2017 could not be complied with. Effective steps have been taken to rectify the situation and restore the position in view of the order of the High Court as would be evident from the order passed by the Revenue Department dated 21.06.2017.

(2.) We have gone through the order of the Revenue Department, which is placed on record. The order itself virtually admits a willful default. It reveals blatant defiance of the order of this Court. By order dated 22.03.2017 this Court clearly directed that if orders are not passed by the authorities on the representation made by the petitioner against his suspension within four weeks, the petitioner would be given his due posting. The order was plain and simple. On failure to pass orders within four weeks, the petitioner's suspension had to be revoked and he had to be given a regular posting. The four weeks period was to expire on 26.04.2017. If we consider that the petitioner was to superannuate on 31.05.2017 and the consequences of superannuating under suspension and superannuating as a regular employee being different, it was all the more important to pass orders in accordance with the directions of this Court.

(3.) It is apparent that the direction of the Court was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned in the department concerned. They did not pass fresh orders. They let the order of suspension continue even beyond 26.04.2017. Not only this, the defiance is clear when all this was brought to the notice of the Suspension Review Committee which met on 12.05.2017, long after the period stipulated had expired. Notwithstanding clear orders of the Court, they rejected the representation and reaffirmed the suspension, thereby, refusing to implement the orders of this Court. This shows a clear attitude to defy the of this Court. This attitude cannot be taken lightly. It must be remembered that even if the order of the High Court be wrong, it is not for the authorities to decide the correctness. They have to implement the order in true word and spirit. They have judicial remedies, if they are aggrieved by the order. But they cannot become judge in this matter and ignore the order of the High Court. If this is permitted, then the rule of law would collapse. All that was required to be done by the respondents was to pass an order rejecting the representation within four weeks of the High Court order and if that was done, the suspension would have continued but that was not done. The High Court order took effect and it was not implemented.