O.P.VERMA Vs. SHAHMAL & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 8176 of 2016, Judgment Date: Aug 17, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8176 OF 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 8751  of 2012)

      O.P.VERMA                                   APPELLANT

                                VERSUS

      SHAHMAL & ORS.                              RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T

      KURIAN,J.

            Leave granted.

2.    The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the impugned  judgment
of the High Court whereby the High Court  declined  to  interfere  with  the
order passed by the Trial Court on a petition under Order  39  Rule  2A  CPC
filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, imposing a penalty of imprisonment  for
a period of one month.
3.    The issue pertains to the demolition of a building.  According to  the
appellant, who was at the relevant time working as  a  Junior  Engineer,  he
had only  implemented  the  order  passed  by  the  Commissioner  and  Joint
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,  Faridabad,  and  that  too  under  the
direct supervision of superior officers.
4.    It is seen that the Commissioner  and  Joint  Commissioner,  Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad were discharged  in  the  proceedings  and  only  the
appellant was visited with the punishment.
5.    Despite, service of notice, there is no appearance for the  contesting
respondents who were plaintiffs before the Trial Court.

6.     The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  submits  that  the
appellant had only discharged the directions under the  supervision  of  the
superior officers, who have  been left off in the proceeding, the  appellant
may also be given the same treatment.

7.    Having regard to the factual background as above, we are of  the  view
that the appellant should succeed, since his superior officers, under  whose
supervision the  contumacious  action  alleged  against  the  appellant  was
committed have been left  off.   Therefore,  the  appeal  is  allowed.   The
impugned judgment is set aside.  The appellant is discharged  from  all  the
charges, accepting the apology tendered by him in court.

                                                         .................J.
                                                         [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                      ....................J.
                                                     [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
  NEW DELHI;
  AUGUST 17, 2016