IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt jurisdiction is not to be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases.

ORDER

This is an instance of how a Tribunal vested with the powers to punish for Contempt of Court became over sensitive in using such powers. Time and again this Court has cautioned as to when and in what circumstances Contempt of Court jurisdiction is to be exercised. Such a power is not intended to be exercised as a matter of course. Courts should not feel unduly touchy when they are told that the orders have not been implemented forthwith. If the court is told that the direction or the order of the Court has been complied with subsequently, albeit after receipt of notice of contempt, we expect the courts to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with the action for contempt.

2. The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, has now convicted the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2000/- as per the impugned order. The Bench held that the appellant is guilty of contempt, not because he did not implement the order passed by the Tribunal but because there was delay in implementing the order.

3. The order of the Tribunal which is said to have been belatedly complied with was passed on 3rd November, 1999, the operative portion of which reads thus :

"For the foregoing reasons, the present O.A. succeeds. The seniority list published by respondents 1 to 3 on 21st November, 1995 in so far as the same shows respondents 4 and 5 senior to applicants is set aside. Respondents 1 to 3 are now directed to publish a fresh seniority list in the light of the observations contained in the present judgment and grant the applicants their due seniority over that of respondents 4 and 5 and grant them further consequential reliefs they may be entitled to under rules. There shall, however, in the facts and circumstances of this case be no order as to costs."

4. What is discernible from the said operative portion is that the Tribunal did not fix up a time limit within which the said direction has to be complied with. The contempt action was taken against the appellant on 24th August, 2000. Appellant submitted in the reply before the Tribunal that the order of the Tribunal was being challenged before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and a Division Bench of the High Court had admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the opposite parties on 24th October, 2000. Despite the pendency of the said writ petition, appellant informed the Tribunal that the direction of the Tribunal was complied with on 27th October, 2000 itself.

5. There is no dispute that the appellant has complied with the order of the Tribunal on 27th October, 2000. There is no dispute that appellants had challenged the said order before the High Court. Ever since the order of the Tribunal was passed, speedy steps have been taken by the Department. Consultations were in progress between the Department and the Secretary (Law and Judicial) and on their instructions the letter was addressed to the Government s counsel and on his advise, further steps were taken and ultimately the Department moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All these things have been stated by the appellant in full details before the Tribunal. In spite of all those submissions and in spite of the Tribunal being told that even during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, they implemented the order so as to avert any possible action against them for contempt, the Tribunal has chosen to convict the appellant and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2000/-.

6. We may also point out that the appellant, when called upon by the Tribunal to appear in person, tendered an apology even after showing all the steps taken for challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd November, 1999. The Tribunal simply turned down the apology of the appellant for the follow