IMPORTANT POINTS
Criminal contempt proceedings cannot be initiated on conjectures and surmises.
The procedures as laid down in Rules 1992 are to be followed strictly.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter called as the `Tribunal') dated 19.12.2002 in Original Application No. 715 of 2002.

2. (A) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the State of Karnataka vide order dated 24.1.2001 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant, an Indian Administrative Service Officer of Karnataka cadre, on the allegation that she had committed certain irregularities in the allotment of wheat under a special programme called the State Funded Wheat Based Nutrition Programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called M/s Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The said regular enquiry stood initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report dated 31.3.1997.

(B) The Appellant filed O.A. No. 715 of 2002 before the Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the Articles of charge dated 30.11.1999 and subsequent proceedings on diverse grounds. In the said Original Application (hereinafter referred to as `O.A.'), the Appellant had made a specific averment that the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 19.6.2002, as the copy of the same was furnished to her by the 3rd Respondent i.e. the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it had been contended by the Appellant that she had approached the Tribunal within limitation. However, taking abundant caution, she had also filed an application for condonation of delay.

(C) The reply to the said application was filed by the Respondents therein on 18.10.2002, wherein it was contended that the order dated 30.11.1999 had been issued to the Appellant on 2.12.1999 by Registered Post with AD.

(D) The Tribunal instead of proceeding with the matter on merit or deciding the issue of limitation, passed an order dated 15.11.2002 stating that the Appellant had made a false statement in the O.A. regarding limitation which was intentional and deliberate. Therefore, prima facie, the Tribunal was of the view that the Appellant had committed criminal contempt and a show cause notice dated 15.11.2002 was issued to the Appellant calling upon her "to appear in person before the Tribunal on 29.11.2002 at 10.30 a.m. to answer the said show cause notice on which day the matter would be listed for hearing".

(E) The Appellant not only appeared in response to the said notice personally, but submitted a reply to the show cause notice contending that she had not made any false statement for the purpose of securing the order of condonation of delay and in fact the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 had been served upon her first time on 19.6.2002. She also made a request to summon certain government records to substantiate her case.

(F) The Tribunal directed the Respondent authorities to produce the documents, i.e. Inward Register, Postal Acknowledge Due and original letter dated 23.12.1999 and other relevant documents, if any, which would have bearing on the matter by the next date and the matter was directed to be listed on 12.12.2002.

(G) On 12.12.2002 though learned Counsel for the Respondent authorities did not produce any of the required documents, but he produced the photocopies of letter dated 23.12.1999 and the Inward Register. The Tribunal adjourned the case to 19.12.2002. The Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 holding that the Appellant was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal and imposed the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 2.9.2003, observing that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 516, wherein it had been held that against the order under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, pas