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