Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 632
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Gurudeep Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
Regonda Srinivas & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta Sg, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain Senior Adv, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, AOR Mr. Vikram Singh Baid Adv, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh Baid, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Garg Adv, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Garg, Adv, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arun K Sinha, Adv. Ms. Anjali Rajput, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Court must be liberal in accepting unconditional apology tendered by contemnor.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Conviction and sentence – Alleged non-compliance with direction of High Court to complete recruitment process within stipulated period – Timeline for completion of recruitment was stipulated by court, while manner in which recruitment was to be completed, was prerogative of appellants – Only provisional appointment orders could be issued in view of fact that contempt petition initiated by respondents, was pending – Even if High Court came to a conclusion that there was a deliberate and willful disobedience of order of court, it could have considered unconditional apology tendered by appellants and concluded the matter – However, High Court has, instead of considering unconditional apology tendered by appellants herein, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment and pay fine – Sentence imposed on appellants set aside. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776/2022 passed by High Court of State of Telangana whereby Appellants, who are Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager (Human Resources) of Company –NTPC Ltd. have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000, by allowing the Contempt Case filed by the respondents herein.
Findings of Court:
It is appropriate to accept the unconditional apology of the appellants herein and consequently set aside the sentence imposed on them.
Result : Civil Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA J.
The present Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776/2022 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana whereby the Appellants, who are the Chairman & Managing Director and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the Company – NTPC Ltd. have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000, by allowing the Contempt Case filed by the respondents herein.
2. The present appeals have been filed primarily on the ground that there has been no wilful and deliberate disobedience or noncompliance by the Appellants of the common judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. 277/2020.
3. The present case pertains to the claim of Respondents and other similarly placed land oustees as Junior Mazdoors on the basis of a tripartite agreement in the year 1988 between NTPC Ltd. with the land oustees.
4. Briefly stated, the facts leading upto these appeals are that the Respondents herein and similarly situated persons were the absolute owners and possessors of the lands of various extents situated at different villages in Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said lands were acquired by NTPC prior to 1980 and an award was passed, awarding compensation for the acquisition of the said lands. The land oustees were proposed to be recruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor. On 15.05.2015, the NTPC issued an employment notification bearing number 2 of 2015 for sponsoring the names of the eligible land oustees to fill 25 posts of Junior Mazdoors in NTPC.
5. W.P. No. 26043/2016 was filed by an aggrieved land oustee assailing the aforesaid notification issued by NTPC in the year 2015 and the recruitment process undertaken by NTPC Ltd. pursuant to the said notification and the same was set aside by the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court as the mode of recruitment provided for was only through interview.
6. Another round of litigation ensued as NTPC issued a notification (No. 01 of 2017) dated 09.03.2017 to recruit junior mazdoors, which was also challenged before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana, in
W.A.No.277 of 2020 directed NTPC to conclude the entire process of recruitment in pursuance of Notification No.01 of 2017 within two months from the date of the said judgment dated 17.12.2021.
7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 17.12.2021, a fresh recruitment Notification bearing No.1 of 2022 was issued and the recruitment process was initiated and the Employment Notification No.01 of 2017, dated 09.03.2017 was cancelled.
8. While matters stood thus, the Respondents herein filed a Contempt Petition bearing No. 776 of 2022 praying to punish the Appellants herein for deliberately not obeying/implementing and deliberately flouting the orders of the High Court dated 17.12.2021 and to hold the Appellants in contempt of Court. By the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776 of 2022, the High Court concluded that there were deliberate and wilful laches, omissions and commissions on the part of the Appellants herein in spite of being fully aware of the implication of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, and therefore, the High Court allowed the contempt case and directed that the Appellants shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, within four (04) weeks from the date of the judgment.
9. The key observations of the High Court of Telangana in the impugned judgment are as follows:
a. That the Appellants ought to have completed the process of recruitment following the Notification No.01 of 2017 dated 09.03.2017 within a period of two months from the date of judgment and issued consequential appointment orders within such time.
b. That the Appellants were the key persons in issuing the Notification No.01 of 2022 and attempting to wi
