An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt, and findings regarding the merits of a dispute can be appealed separately.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in July 1995.

4. After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected, the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings.

5. By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directed that :

“34 For all of the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 16th October, 2018, passed by the DIG (CR&VIG) in the Directorate General, CRPF, imposing the penalty of removal from service on the Petitioner, is hereby set aside. The minor penalty as decided by the DA viz., “reduction to a lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and adversely affecting pension” will be the penalty in the Petitioner’s case.

35 Consequently, the Petitioner is directed to be forthwith reinstated in service, with all consequential benefits, but without any back wages. The date of reinstatement will relate back to the date of his having been originally removed from service i.e. 10th July 1995, for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions. The consequential orders nby way of implementation of this judgment be issued not later than 8 weeks from today.”

6. The respondent instituted contempt proceedings before the High Court of Delhi. He was reinstated in service by an order dated 8 March 2021. The respondent was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on a notional post with effect from 17 October 2021 by an order dated 22 March 2023. He superannuated from service on 31 March 2023.

7. In the course of the hearing of the contempt proceedings, the Single Judge in an order dated 2 June 2023, noted the submission of the respondent that even if the date of implementation of the minor penalty was from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on 31 March 2021. This emerges from paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Single Judge, which is in the following terms:

“38 The Petitioner in his written submissions dated 02.03.2023 had stated that even if the date of implementation of minor penalty is considered to take effect from 16.10.2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from the year 2021, till his date of retirement, i.e. on 31.03.2023. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the said submission during the course of hearing dated 03.03.2023 and submitted that the Petitioner would be satisfied if he is granted the rank of IG as on the date of his retirement.:

8. After recording the above submission, the Single Judge proceeded to hold that there was a willful disobedience of the directions which were issued by the Division Bench with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion. The finding in that regard is contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the Single Judge, which reads as follows :

“39 This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that there is willful disobedience by the Respondent(s) of the directions issued by the Division Bench with respect to the implementation of the directions issued at paragraph 35 of the judgment dated 24.12.2019 with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion.”

9. Thereafter, the Single Judge held the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) and DIG (Personnel) who held office as on 22 March 2023 guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24 December 2019. The Single Judge granted an opportunity to the ap