Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8819 OF 2012
(@ SLP (C) NO.7437 OF 2004)
Gurminder Singh Kang ….Appellant
VERSUS
Shiv Prasad Singh & Ors. .…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
. 1. Leave granted.
. 2. This civil appeal arises out of the order dated 22.3.2004
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC
No.9019/2003 by which the appellant herein was found guilty of
contempt of its order dated 21.8.1995 passed in CWJC No.4369/1994.
While convicting him for contempt, the learned Judge imposed simple
imprisonment of two months apart from a fine of Rs.2000/-. The
order was, however, suspended for a period of four weeks to enable
the appellant to approach this Court. Notice was issued by this
Court in the Special Leave Petition on 15.4.2004 and the impugned
order of the High Court was also stayed.
. 3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that this
Court by order dated 11.09.2009 dismissed the Special Leave
Petition as against respondent No.1 as the petitioner failed to
file application for substituted service in regard to respondent
No.1.
. 4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the order
impugned in this appeal. To briefly state the facts, one Shiv
Prasad Singh who was In-charge Block Supply Officer of Aurangabad
was dismissed from service in the year 1977 on charges of bribery,
by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
Subsequently, considering his representation, he was reappointed by
memo No.1471 dated 28.2.1980. While reappointing him, the said
order mentioned that Shri Shiv Prasad Singh would get the basic
starting pay of Rs.296/- and will not be entitled for any future
promotions. The said order became final and Shiv Prasad Singh was
reappointed as per order dated 28.2.1980. The said Shiv Prasad
Singh filed CWJC 4369 of 1994 wherein he prayed for a direction to
accord time bound promotion as per the State Government’s scheme.
Irrespective of the specific directions contained in reappointment
order dated 28.2.1980, the said writ petition was disposed of by
order dated 21.8.95. The said order was to the following effect:-
“It is no doubt that the order as contained in
annexure ‘1’ was passed in the year 1980 and the petitioner
did not assail the same in any Court of law since then, but
in my opinion when the Government introduced the scheme of
time bound promotion, he can not be denied the benefit
arising therefrom only on account of the impugned order
(annexure 1) if he is otherwise eligible and found suitable.
However, it has rightly been pointed out by the learned
standing counsel that as the representation of the
petitioner is still pending before the Commissioner, Food
and Civil Supply, Govt. of Bihar (respondent No.2) be
directed to dispose of the same.
Accordingly, after having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, the writ application is disposed of with
the direction to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies,
Government of Bihar (respondent N0.2) to dispose of the
representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order within
three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order, the certified copy of which shall be produced
along with the copy of the said representation before
respondent No.2 by the petitioner within two weeks.”
. 5. Pursuant to the said order Shiv Prasad Singh was granted
first time bound promotion from 01.04.1981 and second time bound
promotion from 09.09.92. His salary was fixed in the revised scale
of Rs.5500-9000. The appellant herein by his order dated 25.7.2003
in his capacity as the Commissioner Food and Supplies and Commerce,
Government of Bihar held that the grant of time bound promotion one
on 01.04.1981 and other on 09.09.1992 were in contravention of the
conditions contained in the reappointment order dated 28.2.1980 and
so saying cancelled the said promotions. The salary was also fixed
in the pre-revised scale of Rs.296/-. The corresponding revised
scale was stated to be Rs.5000-8000/-.
. 6. Consequent to the said orders dated 25.7.2003 necessary
orders revising salary in the lowest scale of Rs.5000-8000/- was
fixed from 01.01.1996 and the excess payment was also directed to
be recovered from him. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2003, the
said Shiv Prasad Singh filed a writ petition namely, CWJC No. 9019
of 2003. While examining the grievances in the Writ Petition of
Shiv Prasad Singh the learned Judge of the Patna High Court took
the view that the order passed by the appellant dated 25.7.2003 was
in violation of the specific orders passed in CWJC 4369 of 1994
dated 21.8.1995 and directed the appellant to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter, the appellant
stated to have filed his reply and not being satisfied with the
stand taken by the appellant, the learned Judge concluded that the
conduct of the appellant in having passed the order dated 25.7.2003
was in violation of the order dated 21.8.1995 and, therefore, the
said conduct of the appellant amounted to contempt of the order of
the Court. On the above said basis, the learned Judge ultimately
imposed the punishment of two months’ simple imprisonment apart
from payment of fine of Rs.2000/-.
.
. 7. We heard Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant who strenuously contended that the appellant could not
understand the implication of the order dated 21.8.95 in the proper
perspective when he passed the order dated 25.7.2003 and that in
any event since he has tendered an unconditional apology he should
be dealt with leniently.
. 8. While entertaining this appeal, the appellant was directed
to be present in Court. Accordingly, he also appeared before us on
8.10.12. It was submitted before us by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant retired as Chief Secretary of State of
Bihar and that he regrets for whatever had happened in passing the
order dated 25.7.2003 and that he did not intend to violate the
orders of the Court. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that
considering the age of the contemnor and having regard to the
remorse conduct displayed, he may be dealt with leniently.
. 9. Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge who
has considered the matter in extenso, we find that the conclusions
of the learned Judge in having held that the stand of the appellant
that he was not able to understand the spirit of the order in the
proper perspective cannot be accepted, was well justified. The
appellant was a senior IAS officer and it was found that he had
nearly 30 years of experience as an officer in the administrative
service. When we peruse order dated 21.8.95, we find that the High
Court, though was conscious of the conditions contained in the
reappointment order dated 28.2.80, took the view that irrespective
of the said condition, namely, that the order of reappointment was
subject to the condition that Shiv Prasad Singh would not be
entitled for any promotions, however, found that having regard to
the time bound promotions provided for under separate schemes
announced by the State Government, any such condition in the order
dated 28.2.80 would not operate against the detriment of the said
employee, namely, Shiv Prasad Singh. That such conclusion has been
clearly set out in the order which has been extracted by us in the
earlier part of this order. It was with that specific observation
the authority concerned, namely, the Commissioner, Food and Civil
Supply of Government of Bihar was directed to dispose of the
employee’s representation by reasoned order by fixing a time limit.
The order dated 21.8.95 had also become final and conclusive.
Pursuant to the said order when the then Commissioner Food and
Civil Supplies Government of Bihar passed orders, granting the
first time bound promotion from 1.4.81 and second time bound
promotion from 9.9.92 and by fixing the salary of the employee
concerned in the proper scale, even assuming the appellant who was
stated to have been subsequently posted as Commissioner of Food and
Civil Supplies had any doubt as to the nature of the order passed
on 21.8.95, he should have taken the Royal Road of approaching the
High Court and sought for proper clarifications instead of taking
his own decision to reverse the orders granting time bound
promotions to the peril of the employee and that too without even
referring to the order dated 21.8.95. Even thereafter when the said
employee filed the present Writ Petition in CWJC No.9019 of 2003,
the appellant ought to have rectified his mistake and restored the
benefits of time bound promotions granted in favour of the employee
concerned and thereby displayed his remorse conduct by complying
with the directions of the High Court.
. 10. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this
appeal discloses that instead of displaying such fair conduct
before the Court, he appeared to have attempted to justify his
action by resorting to an escape route and stated to have offered
his regret and unconditional apology as a last resort to pardon him
from being punished for any contempt action. Orders and judgments
of the Court are meant to be obeyed and not to be disobeyed, with
impunity. Of late, we come across several such instances, where
high level officers of the Administration display scant regard for
the orders of the Court and always come forward with lame excuses.
The case on hand is one such instance where the appellant who was a
senior level I.A.S. Officer with not less than 30 years of
experience in the State Administration came forward with a lame and
flippant statement that he did not understand the implication of
the order of the High Court which led him to pass such orders in
total derogation of the directions contained in the orders of the
High Court.
. 11. In the light of the above conclusion of ours, on going
through the orders impugned in this appeal, we do not find any
scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Before us the learned counsel stated that the appellant has retired
from service and while appearing before us the learned counsel
submitted that the appellant expresses his deep regrets and sincere
apologies without any reservation for whatever conduct displayed by
him in the matter of non-compliance of the orders of the High Court
dated 21.8.95.
. 12. We, therefore, hold that the orders impugned in this appeal
in having concluded that the appellant committed contempt of its
order dated 21.08.95 does not call for interference. We, however,
take into account the age of the appellant as well as the remorse
conduct now displayed before us, as submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, we are of the view that the simple
imprisonment of two months alone need not be retained. We, however,
impose a “stern warning” to be recorded as against the appellant
apart from confirming the imposition of fine of Rs.2000/- to be
paid as per the order of the learned Judge impugned in this appeal.
We further direct that the said fine amount of Rs.2000/- shall be
paid, as directed by the learned Judge, within four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing compliance of the
said condition, the sentence of simple imprisonment of two months
shall stand revived. With the above directions, this appeal stands
disposed of.
.................................J.
[T.S. Thakur]
................................J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
December 07, 2012
