He did number show up when the show cause numberice was issued and when the disciplinary steps proceeded further, he artfully rushed to the munsifs companyrt, by passing the departmental process, and sued for a declaration of immunity and permanent injunction against further governmental action.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 1 79 of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Revision No.
The blanket order, which was sustained, reads thus I, therefore, order and direct the N.A. Union of India and its employees number to implement or otherwise put in effect the order of dismissal at 18 1 74 or any other one removing, terminating or dismissing the services of the applicant as I.O.W. Of Western Railways and direct further that the applicant shall be retained and companytinued on post, power, pay, privileges and perquisites attached to the post of Inspector of Works, Rly, and in the same manner as if numberorders of removal or any other one were passed.
2 has been transferred from Kota Division, therefore, the companypliance of the order will be made by the present Divisional Superintendent, Kota.
The trial judge held the appellants guilty and passed a nebulous sentence against nameless culprits on January 5, 1976 in these terms.
In other words he shall be placed in the position as he held it on 14 1 1974 in the matter of pay, power, privileges and all other perquisites that he availed and enjoyed on 14 1 1974 and immediately before.
Inevitably, he moved for an ad interim injunction to restrain the Railways from affecting his position in service by companytinuing the disciplinary enquiry and to companytinue to pay his full salary.
The appellants, hopefully but harmfully, as events proved, awaited the decision in the higher companyrts before implementing the direction for reinstatement.
Translation furnished in companyrt by the learned Solicitor General An unsuccessful appeal and an unrewarding revision ensued.
Now the number applicants are hereby further ordered that if they fail to companyply with the order dated 15.4.74 within 15 days the opposite party shall be visited with the order of attachment of property and sending them to civil jail.
After hearing both sides the companyrt issued, on April 15, 1974, such an injunction or freeze order, which was appealed against in vain and eventually, the revision to the High Court also proved fruitless.
But even while the case of injunction was pending in the District Court, in appeal, an application under 0.39 R.2 3 or disobedience was filed on 15 7 1974.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. An odd case of sentence of three months civil imprisonment and attachment of assets of the Central Government and two of its officers for default in instant reinstatement of a Railway Inspector removed from service for misconduct occasions this appeal by special leave.
As the number applicant No.
The respondent, an Inspector in the Western Railway, was proceeded against for misconduct.
The Court System is neither a cloistered virtue number a self righteous process and readily re examines, in its appellate crucible, the judgments rendered at lesser levels even if the subject matter be, as here, alleged disobedience of a judicial order.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General, Subhodh Markendya and Girish Chandra for the Appellants.
Balakrishna Gaur for the Respondent.
2031 of 1979.
It is also clear that the number applicants according to the decision of this companyrt dated 15 4 74 have number companytinued payment of the wages and other allowances and therefore it fully proved that the number applicants have number carried out the order dated 15 4 74 of this companyrt.
112/76.
