Officers who are not obeying the Court’s Orders, do not deserve salary
JAMMU: In two identical cases of the non-compliance of the court orders, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jammu has ordered an inquiry against the Secretary Health & Medical Education and stopped his monthly salary till further orders.
After the respondents did neither implement the previous orders nor appeared before the Bench, both the cases were listed before the Jammu Bench of the CAT comprising members Ram Mohan Johri and Rajinder Singh Dogra on 28 January 2025.
However, the respondents from the Union Territory Government did not yet again implement the orders. They did not appear before the Bench either.
“On 19.11.2024, it was observed that the selection of the applicant has been made by the respondent no. 1, however, the appointment letter has not been issued so far, and the respondents have availed four opportunities, therefore, the respondents were directed to appear personally on the next date of hearing”, said the CAT order.
“This Court took the serious note and direct the respondent no. 1 (Commissioner-Secretary Health & Medical Education) to issue the appointment letter within a period of four weeks from today failing which he will remain present before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing and explain why he is not issuing the appointment letter to the applicant otherwise coercive action shall be taken against him on the next date of hearing. List this case on 28.01.2025” the Bench referred to a previous order under which Secretary Health & ME had been directed to consider the submission of a selected candidate, namely Dr Palvi Dubey and operate the waiting list in which she figured.
“Despite issuance of orders dated 13.09.2024 and 30.12.2024 the respondents have not issued the appointment letter in favour of the applicant till date. In the present fact and circumstances this Court is constrained to pass this harsh order to stop the salary of the respondent no. 1 Commissioner/Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department, Jammu with immediate effect, as such Officers who are not obeying the Court’s Orders, do not deserve salary”, the CAT Bench ordered harshly.
“Accordingly, the D.D.O concerned is directed to ensure that the salary of the respondent no. 1 be stopped with immediate effect till further orders, and Chief Secretary, J&K is directed to initiate an enquiry against the Respondent No. 1, as to why, the orders dated 13.09.2024 and 30.12.2024 were not complied with, and moreover he was not present before the Court despite clear directions, and thereafter, take strict action against the Officer for not complying the orders of the Court. The action report be submitted by the next date of hearing”, said the order.
February 28 has been fixed as the next date of hearing in both the cases.
“Furthermore, on 30.12.2024 following directions were issued: “Vide order dated 13.09.2024, the respondents were directed to take instruction from the department why they were not taking any decision for the issuance of appointment letter to the applicant and were further directed to consider the case of the applicant for issuing the appointment letter. Despite that they have not complied that order which is violation of the Court’s order”, it added.
The Bench order said further: “It has been observed that non-filing of the reply by the respondents leads to unnecessary delay in giving justice to the litigants and justice delayed is justice denied. The poor litigants who have no access to the Administration knock the door of this Court in the hope that they will get justice here. The aggrieved litigant is running from pillar to post in order to get justice. It is very unfortunate that due to the callous attitude of Officers/Officials, public faith in the judiciary is getting eroded”
“However, innocent litigants cannot be made to suffer for the lackadaisical approach of the respondents. The Tribunal further observed that nobody is above the law, so in order to uphold the majesty of the law this Court was compelled to pass such an adverse order”, the order concluded.
An identical order was issued by the Bench in favour of another petitioner, namely Dr Vasundhra Parihar.
