HC stays contempt proceedings against top MoD officer, AFT in ‘quandry’
Finding itself in a ‘quandary’ after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed contempt proceedings against the top officer of the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has sought the high court’s advice on further proceeding.
In February 2020, the AFT had allowed a petition filed by one Milap Chand seeking service benefits. However, the orders of the Tribunal were not implemented, prompting him to move an application before it for execution.
Observing that the order was not implemented even after five years and rejecting the affidavit filed by the government listing reasons for the same, the AFT held the Secretary DESW guilty of contempt for wilful non-compliance of court orders. The AFT directed the officer’s personal appearance in court for arguments over the quantum of sentence.
The officer moved the high court against the contempt proceedings. Admitting the officer’s petition and treating it as an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the high court, in its order of May 9, directed that till further orders the contempt proceedings in the matter are stayed.
“We find ourselves in a quandary,” the AFT’s Bench of Justice Sudhir Mittal and Lt Gen Ravendra Pal Singh remarked in their May 16 order. “We have been given the powers of execution, and for exercise thereof a Full Bench judgement dated July 31, 2024, passed by the Principal Bench gives us the power of punishment for contempt. When we proceed to take action in accordance with the said power, the high court stays further proceedings,” the Bench said.
The Bench added that it may be noticed that the high court itself has not granted stay of execution in writ petition no. 1947 of 2025 challenging the order of February 2020 and the same is pending for adjudication.
“As an executing court, we are confused as to how we should proceed in such a situation. Thus, advice is solicited from the high court,” the AFT’s Bench said while asking for a copy of this order to be placed before the Chief Justice of the high court as well as the Division Bench concerned for further action.
