GURMINDER SINGH KANG Vs SHIV PRASAD SINGH .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Case number: C.A. No.-008819-008819 / 2012
Diary number: 7644 / 2004
Advocates: MAYA RAO Vs
GOPAL SINGH
Page 1
1
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
Page 2
2
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
Page 3
3
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
Page 4
4
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
Page 5
5
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
Page 6
6
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
Page 7
7
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
Page 8
8
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
Page 9
9
disposed of.
.................................J. [T.S. Thakur]
................................J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi; December 07, 2012