MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, praying for direction to the respondents to implement order dated 4. 3. 1997 of this Court in CWP No. 788/93 and also to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents so as to punish them for committing contempt of this Court.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS were ordered on 29. 5. 1997 by issuing show cause notice to the respondents and the notices were issued by the Registry and got served on 3. 7. 97. Reply to the show cause notice in this contempt petition was filed by the respondents on 8. 8. 97, followed by additional affidavits whenever sought to be filed in reply to the affidavits & applications filed by the petitioner. Shri R. A. Katta learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of this Court either in CWP No. 788/93 or in this contempt petition have been disobeyed by the respondents because despite the direction of this Court and having demanded some material documents as mentioned in letter/notice dated 23. 9. 97 followed by reminders dated 1. 10. 97, 8. 10. 97 & 16. 10. 97, the petitioner has not been furnished with those documents nor shown, rather the enquiry was got completed without supplying those demanded documents, inasmuch as the enquiry was got conducted by Shri S. P. Mathur the then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest who was a contemner in this petition, being a respondent party, which has resulted in violation of principle of natural justice so also Rule 16 (4) of the CCA Rules. Shri Katta further urged that despite having presented reply to the charge sheet raising preliminary objections on 16. 10. 97, no final order was issued rather no decision on preliminary objection was given but enquiry proceeded in flagrant disregard of the order dated 4. 3. 97 of this Court, which too is against Rule 16 (4) of the CCA Rules, inasmuch as field book was not exhibited under charge No. 2 and thus without having exhibited all relevant documents, charge No. 2 was held proved which is also against Rule 16 of the CCA Rules so also in disregard of the directions given in the order dated 4. 3. 97 of this Court. Much emphasis was stressed upon the contention that the Principal Conservator of Forest has not made compliance of this Court's order dated 18. 9. 97 because alongwith result of the enquiry which was based on facts finding, the punishment order has also been passed whereas according to Shri Katta, before imposing minor penalty, a speaking order ought to have been passed whereas according to Shri Katta, before imposing minor penalty, a speaking order ought to have been passed after taking approval of this Court. nor personal hearing was given before imposing minor penalty, nor enquiry result was placed before this Court under a sealed cover, rather penalty order was issued which too is contrary to Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and further these facts were not considered in the appeal against imposition of minor penalty order by the appellate authorities who are contemner and who ought to have refrained from deciding the appeal itself and this according to Shri Katta is a contempt of this Court's order dated 18. 9. 97 passed in this contempt petition. On the contrary Shri S. M. Mehta learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that whatever the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner might have been the good grounds for assailing the impugned inquiry report, penalty order as well as appellate court, but it cannot be made subject matter of contempt of this Court's any of the orders passed either in civil writ petition or contempt petition and, therefore, Shri Mehta cited the decisions of the Apex Court in V. Kanakarajan vs. Gen. Man. SE Railway (1), and J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions and concomitantly perused the relevant orders of this Court, I find that it is not in dispute that as regards enquiry, two fold directions were given firstly (1) to supply relevant documents which had firstly (1) to supply relevant documents which had not been furnished and were very relevant in the context of impugned order charged sheet (Ex5) and secondly (2) that the Forest Secretary shall nominate inquiry officer either not below the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests Rajasthan or not below the rank of Conservator of Forests. A careful perusal of operative part consisting of directions as to the inquiry makes it clear that further direction was to the extent that after supply of the documents required by the delinquent, he would be given a fair opportunity of being heard and of filing his written statement in defence and thereafter final order afresh would be passed in accordance with law. There was no direction in the order dated 4. 3. 97 of this Court (out of which this contempt petition arises) that the result of the inquiry would be kept in a sealed covered nor I find from that order that any direction was issued to take approval before passing final order upon completion of the inquiry itself. But only as per order dated 18. 9. 97 in this contempt petition, direction was given merely to the extent that result of the departmental enquiry if completed by 19. 12. 97 shall be kept in a sealed cover. As per affidavit of respondent No. 1 (Alka Kala), as noticed by this Court in its order dated 18. 9. 97 in this petition, one Shri O. P. Mehra Chief Conservator of Forest was appointed by an order dated 28. 4. 97 with a direction to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks and further to provide him all relevant documents as required; but an objection was raised at the instance of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (respondent No. 2) that as per the CCA Rules it is only the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and not Chief Conservator of Forest being the only competent authority to pass final order in the inquiry, therefore, the matter was taken upon for change of erstwhile inquiry officer and moreover, the petitioner was directed by an order dated 17. 5. 97 to inspect relevant documents and then to file his written statement. In these circumstances the respondent No. 2 took over as the inquiry officer being a disciplinary authority as well.
(3.) AS per order dated 5. 1. 98, learned counsel for the respondents stated that in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 18. 9. 97 the requisite departmental enquiry against the petitioner was completed by the inquiry officer on 18. 12. 1997, and the inquiry report in a sealed covered had already been filed with the Registry of this Court. AS per order dated 22. 4. 98, the result/final report of the disciplinary inquiry dated 18. 12. 1997 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (disciplinary authority) had been sent to this Court which was perused and as per which the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect had been imposed upon this petitioner and the original report was returned to Mr. M. Rafiq learned counsel for the respondents on 22. 4. 98. According to the order dated 10. 8. 1999, Shri S. M. Mehta learned Advocate General had shown for perusal of this Court an order dated 19. 7. 99 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1173/97 which opined thus, -"though pursuant to the order under appeal an enquiry was held and a minor penalty was imposed on the writ petitioner and if the appellants (State of Rajasthan) have complied with the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal and if minor penalty has been imposed, we find it unnecessary to keep the appeal pending. Hence the appeal is disposed of accordingly. " During the course of hearing it was also given out that an appeal against inquiry report dated 18. 12. 1997 cum order of imposition of minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was also filed by the present petitioner (delinquent) before the State Government which has also been dismissed by its order dated 19. 4. 2000 upholding the penalty order dated 18. 12. 1997 (xerox copies whereof have been filed by Shri S. M. Mehta on 28. 9. 2001 ). Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on merits as to the contentions raised by Shri Katta which may have relevance for assailing the inquiry report cum order of penalty, but I am of the considered view that once there is an order passed by the Government (respondents) on the basis of directions issued by this Court in writ petition there arises fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The inquiry or its report or order of penalty passed under it may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions but that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party like the present petitioner to avail of the opportunity of judicial review and that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order of this Court. The scope of the present contempt petition is very limited and that being so, I am not prone to go into other contentions raised by Shri R. A. Katta learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of certain related orders passed by the respondents during the course and upon completion of inquiry itself which was conducted pursuant to the directions of this Court in writ petition or even this contempt petition, inasmuch as the remedy on the basis of all these contentions raised by Shri R. A. Katta against the inquiry report or order of penalty or appellate order or for not promoting him by the DPC or for lately confirming him or for promoting his juniors (Rajendra Prasad Sharma & Rafiq Mohd.) on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests from the post of Ranger or for non-grant of selection grade & benefit of 2nd promotional post with higher grade on completion of 18 & 21 years of his service, in my considered view, lies not in this contempt petition but in an appropriate forum either under the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act or under any other law if so advised. Moreover on the basis of the contentions raised by Shri Katta in this contempt petition after re-exercising the judicial review of the final inquiry report cum penalty order or appellate order upholding the order of penalty, for any relief so claimed herein, a fresh direction by this Court in contempt proceedings can not be given because it would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. My view is fortified from the dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court in V. Kanakarajan vs. Gen. Man. SE Railway (supra) and J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (supra ). I do not think that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for contempt against the respondents. ;