2006 Supreme(SC) 537

2006(4) Supreme 752
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
B.P. Singh and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors.—Appellants
versus
Chunilal Nanda & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1727 of 2002
With
SLP (C) Nos. 13045-46/2003
Decided on 25-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants: Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate, Parijat Sinha, Snehasish Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, Satish Vig, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Alok Kumar, Vikas Mahajan, R.C. Kohli, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 19—Appeal against orders in contempt proceedings—Maintainability —Scope of Section 19 of the Act.

       Held :

       I.An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

       II.Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.

       III.In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

       IV.Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

       V.If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (in other cases). (Para 11)

       (ii) Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court—Clause 15—Intra Court appeal under clause 15—Availability against interlocutory order containing directions on merits of the dispute—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 2(9) Order 43 Rule 1.

       Held : Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories :

       (i)Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

       (ii)Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

       (iii)Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case.

       (iv)Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment.

       (v)Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

       The term ‘judgment’ occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, ‘judgments’ for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not ‘judgments’ for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.(Para 16)

       (iii) Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court—Clause 15—Intra Court appeal—Maintainability—Respondent, working as Secretary was kept under suspension pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings—Writ petition filed challenging suspension on ground that charge sheet had not been issued—Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report—Another writ petition was filed for quashing the enquiry proceedings alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer—Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint someone who is not a member of the Bank’s Board of Directors as Enquiry Officer—Enquiry Officer to be so appointed was required to conduct enquiry de novo—As the enquiry was not completed within four months from the date of first sitting, first respondent filed a contempt application—Single Judge summoned the enquiry records holding that the Enquiry Officer had not proceeded with due diligence—Appeal filed by the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank—Whether maintainable—(Yes)—Whether appeal was not maintainable because, it was filed by the Chairman and the Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank eo nominee, and not by the ‘Bank’ itself.

       Held : The order dated 20.11.1998 against which the appeal was filed, was passed by the learned single Judge in the course of contempt proceedings. The Chairman and the Secretary-in-Charge were parties to such proceedings having been impleaded eo nomine as respondents 1 and 4 respectively. The `Bank’ as such was not a party to the contempt proceedings. The learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the Chairman and the Secretary-in-Charge represented the `Bank’ by referring to them as `Respondent Bank’ and directing them to reinstate the complainant (first respondent herein) and to pay all salary arrears to him. If the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge were considered as representing the Bank for issuing such directions, certainly they could file an appeal against such directions. The directions were issued to them and they were the persons aggrieved.(Para 17)

       The Division Bench, therefore, committed a serious and obvious error in holding that the appeal [MAT 4075/1998] was not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.1998, by which several directions to the Bank with reference to first Respondent were issued, is not a final ‘judgment’, it is an ‘interlocutory judgment’ which finally decides several rights and obligations of the employee vis-a-vis the employer and therefore, appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.(Para 18)

       (iv) SERVICE LAW—Contempt Proceedings—Disciplinary Proceedings—Contempt proceeding initiated by a delinquent employee against the Enquiry Officer as also the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge of the employer—Complaint of disobedience of an order directing completion of enquiry in a time bound schedule—Whether the Court can direct that the employer shall reinstate the employee forthwith—(No)—Orders passed were totally outside the scope of proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings.

       Held : In the circumstances, the court ought to have proceeded to consider whether there was any wilful disobedience of the order dated 9.4.1997, on the part of S.K. Das and if so, punish him for contempt. As S.K. Das was nowhere in the picture when the order dated 9.4.1997 was passed in the writ petition, and as he was appointed as an independent Enquiry Officer only by an order dated 5.1.1988 and as there was a complaint about the non-cooperation by the first respondent, (delinquent employee), it is doubtful where there was any case for even issuing a show cause notice to him. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with the issue of show cause notice to S.K. Das in this appeal. What is relevant to be noticed is that the learned Single Judge could not have made an order in the contempt proceedings, that Sri S.K. Das had, by his conduct, disqualified himself to be the Enquiry Officer and that he shall cease to be the Enquiry Officer and that another Enquiry Officer shall be appointed.(Para 20)

       There was also no justification for the further direction by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, that too by an interlocutory order, that the complainant should immediately and forthwith be reinstated into the service of the Bank, and shall be deemed to be in the service of the Bank all through, that the employee shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and that he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. These were totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances, there was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank and its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such directions, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the course of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and the direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set aside.(Para 21)