2004 Supreme(SC) 1298

2004(8) Supreme 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
B.N. Agrawal & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
E.T. Sunup -Appellant
versus
C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3157 of 1998
Decided on 13-10-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jagdeep Dhankhar, Sr. Advocate, Devendra Singh, Abani Kumar Sahu, Ghanshyam, Atul K. Sinha, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate and Rajiv Mehta, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Tendency of undermining the Court s order cannot be countenanced, therefore, it is necessary to deal with such type of violation of Court s order with strong hands.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act-Sections 2 and 12-Contempt of Courts Order-State Government had stopped all payments of employees of State Government except salaries and pensions-Subsequently ban imposed was relaxed with regard to payment of salaries to regular staff, pension, leave encashment and GIS of retired Government employees-Orders challenged by Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees Association-Interim order passed by the Court suspending order of withdrawal of GPF money-Interim order not complied with by respondent-Contempt Petition-Contemnor misleading the Court by stating that order of ban has been withdrawn-However, order of withdrawal of ban not produced by the contemnor-Order revoked after close of arguments-Deliberate attempt on part of bureaucracy to circumvent the order of Court and stick to their stand-Violation of Court s order-Appellant held guilty of flouting Courts order-Appellant being Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Finance Department-Sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- only.

       Held : We are of the opinion that the present order passed by the High Court in the facts and circumstances the case is fully justified. Once a stand was taken by the Advocate General that the ban does not survive and amount of GPF was disbursed during the period 1996-97, then there was no reason why the order banning of disbursement of GPF was not revoked. The stand taken by the State on one hand that amount of GPF was disbursed still they were not prepared to revoke the order, we fail to understand this inconsistent stand. Once the administrative order is issued then it cannot be revoked by oral submission before Court. It has to be revoked by another administrative order (which they have now passed). If the Adv. General had made a statement before the Court then it should have been followed with the administrative order revoking the ban. Till the date of argument learned counsel for the appellant could not produce before us the order revoking the ban, on the contrary the ban was kept in force and the second contempt petition was filed before the Court and the Advocate General again made a statement that GPF applications will be processed that makes the matter worse for the petitioner and it does not mitigate the situation. It is different that now a realization has dawn upon the authorities as they find no escape route for them, therefore, they have now revoked the order dated 25.2.1997 by the Order dated 23.9.2004 after close of arguments. It has become a tendency with the Government Officer to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the court s order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fait. The executive & legislature has to work within Constitutional frame work and the judiciary has been given a role of watch dog to keep the legislature & executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of Court s Order and appellant is guilty of flouting the Courts Order. (Paras 15 and 16)

       While coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incumbent is on the verge of retirement and he has suffered a lot and he has an unblemished career of 30 years of service. More so now Order dated 25.2.1997 has been revoked though belated therefore a mercy be shown to him and his apology may be accepted. But if the Court s orders are flouted like this, then people will loose faith in the Courts. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with such type of violation of Court s Order with strong hands and to convey to the authorities that the Courts are not going to take things lightly. However, looking to the long career of this Officer and now order has been revoked, we do not propose to punish him with imprisonment but we propose to impose a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and in default of payment of fine, to undergo a simple imprisonment for one month. (Para 18)