JUDGMENT

A.S.ANAND, J.

(1) PERMISSIVENESS of the judicial system which enabled the contemner to file innumerable petitions claiming the same relief arising out of the same cause of action undeterred by its refusal, on various occasions by this court, coupled with the indulgence and sympathy shown by this court, appears to have emboldened the respondentcontemner to cast unfounded and unwarranted aspersions and make scurrilous and indecent attacks against this court and its Judges in wild, intemperate and even abusive language. Narration of facts to point out the extent to which the contemner has abused the process of the court and how indulgence and sympathy shown by this court has been exploited by him is not only desirable but necessary to appreciate how and why contempt proceedings have been initiated against him.

(2) SHRI Roshan Lal Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the contemner) was appointed as a Draftsman Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 205-7-240- 8-280 in 1964 with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, government of India. On 28/06/1970, he was reduced in rank to the post of Draftsman Grade ill in the scale of Rs. 150- 5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. The contemner filed Writ Petition No. 194 of 1970 in the Delhi High court challenging his reduction in rank. On 16/08/1974, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. A letters patent appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the division bench on 3/12/1974. Special leave petition was preferred in this court which also failed. The contemner then sought a review of the order in the special leave petition on two different occasions and both the petitions were dismissed. Though the matter should have ended here, the contemner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 32 of 1977 under Article 32 of the Constitution once again putting in issue his reduction in rank from Draftsman Grade II to Draftsman Grade III. That writ petition was, however subsequently withdrawn. It transpires that the contemner was convicted by the Sessions Judge for an offence of attempting to commit murder by shooting at his wife. The conviction was confirmed by the High court. A special leave petition against his conviction and sentence was filed in this court and the same was dismissed. However, some observations were made while dismissing the special leave petition in the criminal case, which according to the contemner had absolved him of any moral turpitude in the matter. Consequent upon his conviction, the contemner, after notice, was dismissed from service. He filed Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 and various interim applications in the said writ petition putting in issue once again his reduction in rank and loss of monetary benefits. He later on amended the writ petition with a view to challenge the order of dismissal also. In the said Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978, rule nisi was issued. Various interim orders also came to be made. One of the interim orders in the writ petition directed the government to consider the question of entitlement of the contemner to arrears of salary and other benefits and by yet another interim order his reinstatement was ordered with the stipulation that he be so reinstated but only as a fresh entrant. That order reads thus:

"DEFENCE Ministry will expedite consideration and as far as possible absorb this small draftsman back into service subject to such conditions as it seeks to impose. The appointment will be a de novo appointment."

In obedience to the interim order (supra) the contemner was reinstated in service during the pendency of the writ petition. He, however, filed another writ petition in the Delhi High court for the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled consequent on his reinstatement. That writ petition was, at the request of the contemner, transferred to this court and heard along with Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978. Chinnappa Reddy, J. constituting the bench with Rangana