2021 Supreme(SC) 285

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Abhishek Kumar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
G. Pattanaik and Others – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 625-626, 642-643, 671-672 of 2019, 395-396, 408-409, 598-599, 669-670, 671-672 of 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 11017-11018 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 491 of 2020, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1209 of 2020
Decided On : 03-06-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Writ Petition – If termination order is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before Constitutional Court including by way of writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India.
(2) In exercising contempt jurisdiction, primary concern must be whether acts of commission or omission can be said to be contumacious conduct of party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with directions given in judgment and order of Court.
(3) Back wages is not automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement.
(4) It is not open to High Court to interpret or explain order passed by Apex Court in previous proceedings between the parties. High Court can only follow dictum of Apex Court which is binding on it.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 32 read with Article 141 – Writ Petition – Maintainability – If termination order is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before Constitutional Court including by way of writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India – It is a different matter that this Court may be loath in entertaining grievance directly under Article 32 and instead relegate petitioner(s) before High Court to first exhaust remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India – This Court will then have advantage of judgment of High Court on relevant aspects – It is not a question of maintainability of writ petition, but one of exercise of discretion with circumspection in entertaining writ petition under Article 32 in such matters – In present case, there are other proceedings pending in form of contempt petitions and a transfer petition wherein termination order is subject matter – Fact that other affected similarly placed persons have filed writ petitions directly before High Court and which are stated to be pending, can be no impediment for this Court in entertaining and deciding writ petition – Issue regarding purport of orders passed by this Court needs to be answered appropriately in contempt petitions only by this Court – It is not open to High Court to interpret or explain order passed by this Court in previous proceedings between the parties – High Court can only follow dictum of this Court which is binding on it. (Para 56)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt notice – Termination – Conditional re-engagement in service – In exercising contempt jurisdiction, primary concern must be whether acts of commission or omission can be said to be contumacious conduct of party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with directions given in judgment and order of Court – Thrust of argument of petitioners is that effect of judgment of High Court in setting aside termination order, as upheld by Apex Court is that termination order stood effaced in its entirety – As such, it was necessary to issue a formal order of reinstatement along with continuity in service and arrears of pay for relevant period – Direction given by High Court and upheld by this Court, is limited to permit petitioners to work on posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Assistant Engineer (Electric/Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Computer Science and Electronics and Communication/Electrical and Electronics) and to pay them regular salary month by month as and when it becomes due and payable to them – There is nothing to indicate that High Court expressly directed reinstatement of petitioners with continuity of service and back wages – Back wages is not automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement – It is not a case of wilful disobedience of orders of Court – Case at hand does not qualify test of contumacious, much less wilful disobedience of order of Court by officers of respondents as such – Basis of contempt action rejected. (Paras 22, 58, 60, 62, 63 and 64)

(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt notice – Termination – Conditional re-engagement in service – Court had set aside termination order issued by respondents, solely on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice – At the same time, liberty was given to respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law including by undertaking exercise of segregating tainted from untainted candidates – Court expected that before taking any precipitative action against petitioners, respondents must afford opportunity of hearing to them – This observation is contextual – It would come into play dependent upon opinion eventually formed by respondents after due consideration of material collated by them to distinguish tainted and untainted candidates, was possible or otherwise – After due enquiry and taking into consideration all aspects of matter, in particular enquiry reports and opinion of experts including final report of SIT, respondents were of considered opinion that it was not possible to segregate tainted from untainted candidates for reasons recorded in that order – Court not inclined to go into correctness of said reasons because it is subject matter of challenge in writ petitions pending before High Court – Respondents could annul entire selection process and pass impugned order without giving individual notices to petitioners and similarly placed persons – Even second set of contempt petitions in reference to subject termination order being in violation of direction given by this Court to afford opportunity to petitioners, must fail – Petitioners relegated before High Court to pursue their remedy under Article 226 of Constitution – Show-cause notices issued in respective contempt petitions stand discharged – Contempt petitions dismissed. (Paras 66, 67, 69, 71 and 72)

Facts of the case:

Present cases essentially assail the orders dated 4.12.2018 and 2.3.2020 issued by the Chief Engineer (A21), Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow1, pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1101711018/2018. This Court by the aforesaid judgment, had directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (respondent corporation) to comply with judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 28.11.2017 in a batch of writ petitions (leading case being Writ-A No. 37143/2017) and pass a fresh, reasoned order. In pursuance of the aforementioned decision of this Court, Chief Engineer issued order dated 4.12.2018, thereby reengaging the petitioners and other appointees to their previous place of posting. However, with a caveat that the said appointment was subject to the liberty granted by this Court and that no arrears would be paid by the respondent corporation.

Broad points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the order dated 4.12.2018 passed by respondents is in the teeth of judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018, requiring compliance of judgment of High Court dated 28.11.2017, for deliberate failure to reinstate with continuity of service and to pay arrears to the petitioners?

2. Whether the termination order dated 2.3.2020 passed by respondents is in wilful disobedience of and in the teeth of judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018, for not following the principles of natural justice and is thus non est in law?

Findings of Court:

Since respondents have concluded that it was not possible to segregate tainted from the untainted candidates because of the reasons noted in the termination order dated 2.3.2020, in law, there was nothing wrong in respondents issuing the said termination order without affording prior opportunity to the petitioners and similarly placed persons.

Result : Writ Petition disposed of. Transfer Petitions rejected.