RENU SINHA vs RAILWAY on 10 November 2026

1. Ms. Chhavi Jha, The Principal Financial Advisor, E. C. Railway, Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali (Bihar)- Pin 844101.

2. Shri Vijay Tukaram Kadam, The Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, (Construction), East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, Patna (Bihar)- Pin- 800004.

........ Respondents

For The Applicant(s): Mr. Sunil Kumar

For The Respondent(s): Mr. A. K. Mantu

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal

O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 050/00385/2020.

3. The instant Contempt Petition was taken up for consideration for the first time on 17.01.2025, when show cause notices were issued to the respondents. It is evident from the record that the original order dated 05.05.2022 did not prescribe any specific time limit for its compliance. Nevertheless, it was incumbent upon the petitioner, if he intended to initiate contempt proceedings, to approach this Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the date on which the alleged contempt could reasonably be said to have been committed. In the absence of any specific time limit stipulated in the original order, a reasonable period of six months may be considered for the purpose of assessing the alleged non-compliance. However, the present Contempt Petition was instituted only on 17.01.2025, i.e., after the expiry of more than two years from the date by which compliance could reasonably have been expected. The petitioner has also filed

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal

MA No. 29/2025 seeking condonation of the delay in instituting the present proceedings.

4. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, expressly provides as follows: "No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." The statutory provision, therefore, imposes an express limitation of one year for initiation of contempt proceedings. In the present case, even if the alleged non-compliance is reckoned from the expiry of a reasonable period of six months from the date of the original order, the statutory period of limitation had already expired much before the institution of the present Contempt Petition.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992, have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The expression 'Act' used in the said Rules refers to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, the procedural rules framed for regulating contempt proceedings before this Tribunal cannot be construed to

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal override or dilute the statutory mandate contained in Section 20 of the parent Act.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549, has authoritatively examined the scope and applicability of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The statutory bar prescribed therein cannot be circumvented by initiating contempt proceedings after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, in the absence of any legally sustainable ground to hold that the alleged contempt was committed within the period of one year preceding the initiation of the present proceedings, this Tribunal cannot proceed further with the Contempt Petition. The delay in question, being beyond the statutory period, cannot be condoned so as to defeat the express mandate of Section 20 of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes the aforesaid legal position and does not wish to contest the maintainability of the present Contempt Petition on the ground of limitation. However, he seeks liberty to pursue appropriate execution proceedings for enforcement of the order dated 05.05.2022 passed in the original OA. The liberty so prayed for is granted, subject to the availability of such remedy in accordance with law.

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, who is present before the Tribunal, submits that the order passed in the original OA has already been fully complied with. He further submits that the present Contempt Petition was not maintainable from its inception, being barred by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the statutory bar under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the present Contempt Petition cannot be proceeded with and accordingly stands dropped.

10. Notices issued to the respondents, stand discharged.

11. All pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kr. Johari) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

sl

Sonali Lal Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:

Sonali Lal