Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY
SHYAMAL KRISHNA CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
SUKUMAR DAS - Respondent
M. A. T. 339 Of 1999
Decided On : 07/27/2001
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [KEYWORD] - SUBJECT - Violation of Court Order - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 20 - SUMMARY - The petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated from service. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected. He then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service without any break and to pay him all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of the order. The respondents reinstated the petitioner but did not pay the arrears of salaries and benefits together with increments for the period from 29th January, 1991 to 26/05/1999. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of the High Court's order. The respondents contended that the contempt petition was barred by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it was filed more than one year after the alleged contempt was committed. The High Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not apply to contempt proceedings initiated in respect of violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court further held that the contempt petition was maintainable as it was filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The High Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the entire salary to which he was entitled to in normal circumstances for the period he was kept out of employment as a result of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated from service. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected. He then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service without any break and to pay him all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of the order. The respondents reinstated the petitioner but did not pay the arrears of salaries and benefits together with increments for the period from 29th January, 1991 to 26/05/1999. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging violation of the High Court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not apply to contempt proceedings initiated in respect of violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court further held that the contempt petition was maintainable as it was filed within one year from the date of the alleged contempt.
Issues: Whether Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, applies to contempt proceedings initiated in respect of violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not apply to contempt proceedings initiated in respect of violation of an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court relied on the following principles: (1) As a Superior Court of Record the contempt jurisdiction of High Court is inherent in it and it has not been conferred for the first time under Article 215. Article 215 by assimilating the common law principles relating to contempt jurisdiction of a Superior Court of Record recognized the pre-existing position which is inherent in such Courts. The contempt jurisdiction of the High Court is, therefore, 'sui juris'. (2) The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 215 is a jurisdiction of necessity inasmuch as without this jurisdiction a Court of Record cannot properly and effectively carry on the administration of justice or maintain and uphold the rule of law. (3) Since the contempt jurisdiction of a High Court is an inherent one and is recognized and saved by the Constitution, it has a constitutional foundation and this cannot be curtailed or even curbed by any legislation short of constitutional amendment. (4) The said jurisdiction is not governed under or limited by any rules of procedure excepting principles of natural justice and fair play. The only limitation in the exercise of such jurisdiction is on the quantum of punishment. In other words in imposing punishment under contempt jurisdiction, the Court has to follow the provision of Section 12 of CCA. To put it differently, a punishment which is not provided under CCA cannot be imposed. (5) This limitation on punishment on the power of the High Court in awarding punishment has been recognised both in the provisions of Contepmt of Courts Acts 1926 and of 1952 and has been interpreted in the case of Sukhdev Singh (1954 Cri LJ 460) (SC) (supra ). (6) But the CCA cannot be used for either (I) limiting or (II) regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. (7) An act of Parliament cannot take away the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Record to punish for contempt even thoughsuch a legislation can serve as a "guide" for the determination of the nature of punishment which a Court of Record may impose in case of established contempt.
Final Decision: The High Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the entire salary to which he was entitled to in normal circumstances for the period he was kept out of employment as a result of the impugned order.
( 1 ) THIS contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of a judgment and order dated 4-3-99 passed by a Division Bench of Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen as His Lordship then was and Justice Dipak Prakash Kundu in MAT No. 339 of 1999.
( 2 ) FROM the operative portion of the said judgment it appears that the learned Judges of the Division Bench allowed the appeal and further gave a direction that "the appellant-petitioner should be treated as in service without any break and he should be paid all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of this order".
( 3 ) A few relevant facts may be noted. The service of the petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated, inter alia, on the ground of unauthorized absence. Against the said order, an appeal was filed to the appellate authority under the rules and the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was numbered as C. O. 5274 of 1992. A learned Judge of this Court hearing the writ petition quashed both the orders of the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate authority but the matter was ultimately remanded to the appellate authority for considering the whole matter afresh in accordance with the provision of the law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
( 4 ) AGAINST the said order, the aforesaid appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court and he appellate Court was pleased to allow the appeal with the direction to reinstate the petitioner and with the aforesaid direction of paying consequential benefits. After the said order of the appellate Court was communicated, even though the contemners reinstated the petitioner but they did not pay the arrears of salaries and benefits together with increments for the period from 29th Junary, 1991 to 26/05/1999 as such. It is submitted, that there is a contumacious disregard of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment and order as mentioned above.
( 5 ) IN this case, three affidavits have been filed by three contemners separately but affidavits are in similar terms. In those affidavits the common stand of the alleged contemner is that (i) the petitioner has already been reinstated in service and he joined the same w. e. f. 20-5-1999 (2) Arrears of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,157,70p. had been drawn in favour of the petitioner and the same is ready for payment and the petitioner was requested to draw the same amount but the petitioner refused to do so. (3) Against the period of absence of the petitioner, extraordinary leave has been granted to regularize the period of absence in order to treat the petitioner in continuous service without any break. (4) The period of absence has been ordered to be counted towards gratuity and pension for the purpose of length of service.
( 6 ) THE admitted position is that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the appellate Court, respondents have not given the petitioner the arrears of salary for the period during which he was kept out of service as a result of his termination from service.
( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the appellate Court has held that the termination order is bad and the petitioner is entitled to continue his service without any break [page 5 of the appellate Court's judgment] and then again gave a positive direction upon the respondents to treat the petitioner in service without any break and there is also a direction that the petitioner should be paid the consequential benefit in accordance with law, the contemner must give the petitioner the salary for the period in question. By giving some partial benefits there has not been a total compliance of the Court's order and as such the contempt application has been filed by the petitioner for ensuring compliance of that order.
( 8 ) COUNSEL for the contemner, however, said that by giving the benefit as aforesaid they have complied
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
