Petitioner challenged contempt proceedings alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order directing his consideration for promotion. Contempt was dismissed as there was no evidence of conscious, deliberate disobedience; respondents properly considered the case and rejected it due to pending penalty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 360 of 2011 Reserved on: 19.4.2011 Decided on: 2.5.2011
Prem Lal …Petitioner. Versus Shri Kant Baldi & another …..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. A.G.
Kuldip Singh, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for initiation of proceedings as per law against the respondents for wilfully disobeying the judgment dated 9.12.2009 in CWP(T) No. 3082 of 2009. It has also been prayed that the respondents may be punished to upkeep the majesty of law in highest esteem and to secure ends of justice.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes
2
even visited the office of the respondents many times but without any result. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The information was given to the petitioner in March, 2010 in response to his application that the case of the petitioner was under the active consideration of the respondents.
3
Vigilance Department, hence delay in convening the DPC was neither deliberate nor intentional.
4
The petitioner was due for promotion in the year, 2001. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered as such. The punishment order dated 6.1.2010 is after the passing of judgment dated 9.12.2009 of this Court, which the petitioner has challenged in the writ petition. There was nothing in the year 2001 against the petitioner. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable being contrary to Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The respondents have wilfully violated the judgment dated 9.12.2009 and, therefore, they are liable to be dealt with in accordance with law.
follows:-
“5. The fact remains that only the petition and Annexures filed with the petition are on record. The case put forward by the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he is at Serial No. 293-A in the seniority list, Annexure- A/1 and several persons below Serial No. 293-A have been promoted as Principals but petitioner has not bee promoted as Principal nor any reason has been assigned by the respondents why petitioner has not been promoted as per his seniority though he is fully eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. At the time of hearing also nothing has been stated on behalf of respondents why the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the post of Principal. In these circumstances the petition is allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal within a period of eight weeks from today and in case he is found suitable for promotion to the post of Principal then he should be promoted as Principal from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. Petition stands disposed of with above directions.”
5
6
7
the post of Principal then he should be promoted as Principal from the date his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential
benefits.
Bhandra & Ors., JT 2002(Suppl.1) SC 56 , it has been held as
follows:-
“3. On the ground that the order made by the High Court on the writ side is not complied with, a complaint was filed in contempt jurisdiction. Unless there is wilful disobedience to the order made by the court, it is very difficult to conceive of the situation where the High Court could hold a party to be guilty of contempt. In the present case, the order made by the learned single judge in respect of which the complaint was made is that the authorities will have to act in terms of the statue and rules in regard to employment on rotational basis and their continuance and absorption. That is the substance of the order dated 20.7.1988. Whether the statue
8
and rules have been complied with or not, whether the concerned complainants fulfilled the necessary qualifications as prescribed in the statue or rules or not are all matters in respect of which there could be a serious dispute. In such matters, it could not be clearly stated that the concerned parties had acted wilfully in contempt of the court. In that view of the matter, we think the High Court is not justified in holding that the appellants were guilty of contempt. Further, the High Court could have given certain clarifications in regard to the implementation of the order made by the High Court on writ side after giving due opportunity to all concerned, if the high Court felt that the order in the writ application was not properly interpreted or understood by the concerned authorities. But, it could not have said, without reference to the relevant rules and factual details that the appellants should purge the contempt by absorbing the petitioners in regular establishment without insisting on any test in view of their long and satisfactory service.”
16. In Dinesh Kumar Gupta v United India Insurance
Company Ltd & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 770 , it has been held as follows:-
“17. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this Court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance with the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious
9
consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame excuse, in order to subvert its compliance, howsoever articulate it may be, will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but while deciding so, it would not be legally correct to be too speculative based on assumption as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clearly postulates and emphasizes that the ingredient of wilful disobedience must be there before anyone can be hauled up for the charge of contempt of a civil nature.
10
his immediate junior was promoted with all consequential benefits. The suitability for promotion of the petitioner was to be considered by the respondents. Even if it is assumed that the respondents have erred in not promoting the petitioner still it cannot be said to be a case of conscious, deliberate, wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 9.12.2009. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and thereafter rejected the case of the petitioner. No malafides have been imputed to the respondents nor otherwise established. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed the contempt of the Court by violating the judgment dated 9.12.2009.
( Kuldip Singh ), May 2, 2011. Judge. (vt)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether arbitrary rejection of a promotion case based on subsequent penalty constitutes wilful disobedience warranting contempt.
Whether a High Court can hold a party guilty of contempt when compliance involves disputed statutory interpretation and factual qualifications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwant Kaur and others v. Gurdial Singh Mann & othersReferred¶31
Kulwant Kaur and others v. Gurdial Singh Mann & others, (2001) 4 SCC 262 · Who else cites this
Dilip Mitra & Anr. V. Swadesh Chandra Bhandra & Ors.Explained¶37
Dilip Mitra & Anr. V. Swadesh Chandra Bhandra & Ors., JT 2002(Suppl.1) SC 56 · Who else cites this
Dinesh Kumar Gupta v United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.Applied¶43
Dinesh Kumar Gupta v United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 770 · Who else cites this
Prem Lal
Shri Kant Baldi
Kuldip Singh
Judge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
