Back
1987 Supreme(Cal) 112
High Court Of Calcutta
M. K. MUKHERJEE, M. G. MUKHERJI
S.K.SAHA - Appellant
Versus
GOKUL CHANDRA - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 1309 Of 1978
Decided On : 04/10/1987
P.C.MONDAL, RUPEN MITRA, S.N.BANERJEE
A proceeding for civil contempt cannot be predicated upon the disobedience of an order or direction which provides scope for different reasonable and rational interpretations.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER - BONA FIDES - SCOPE OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - S. 20 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
An employee was reverted from the post of Assistant Superintendent to Inspector and transferred to another location. He challenged the order in court and obtained an interim order of status quo. The appellants, who were responsible for implementing the order, interpreted it as meaning that the employee should continue as an Inspector. The employee filed a contempt petition alleging that the appellants had wilfully disobeyed the court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the interim order was capable of different reasonable interpretations and that the appellants' interpretation, though not legally sustainable, was not made in bad faith. The court also held that a proceeding for civil contempt cannot be predicated upon the disobedience of an order or direction which provides scope for different reasonable and rational interpretations.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants wilfully disobeyed the court order by interpreting it in a way that allowed them to continue the employee as an Inspector? 2. Whether the appellants' interpretation of the order was made in bad faith?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A proceeding for civil contempt cannot be predicated upon the disobedience of an order or direction which provides scope for different reasonable and rational interpretations. 2. If the direction contained in an order is subject to or dependent upon determination of some other facts the violation of such directions cannot give rise to a proceeding for civil contempt. 3. In the instant case, the interim order was capable of different reasonable interpretations and the appellants' interpretation, though not legally sustainable, was not made in bad faith.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order holding the appellants guilty of civil contempt.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('act' for short) is directed against the judgment and order dt. Mar. , 28, 1978 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court holding the two appellants guilty of civil contempt. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as under.
( 2 ) GOKUL Chandra Dhara, the respondent herein was, at all material times, an employee in the Post and Telegraph Department. He was confirmed in the post of an Inspector in the Railway Mail Service (R. M. S.) by an order dt. Sept. 18, 1972 passed by the Director of Postal Services (R. M. S.) West Bengal Circle, Calcutta; and thereafter by an order dt, July 18, 1974 he was promoted, on a temporary basis, to the post of an Assistant Superintendent of R. M. S. On or about Mar. 17, 1975 the respondents, while on leave, was served with a memorandum dt. Mar. 14,1975 issued by Sri S. K. Saha, Senior Superintendent of the Calcutta R. M. S. Division (the appellant 1 herein), intimating that pursuant to an order passed by Sri Nirmal Kumar Verma, Director of Postal Services (R. M. S.) West Bengal Circle (the appellant No. 2 herein) on Mar. 10, 1975 he (the respondent) was reverted to the post of Inspector, R. M. S. and was transferred to Howrah R. M. S. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent made a number of representations to the higher authorities for its revocation but failed. The respondent then moved an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before a learned Judge of this Court challenging the order dt. Mar. 10,1975 and praying for appropriate writs for its annulment. On that application a Rule nisi was issued on Sept. 17,1975 and an order was passed for maintaining status quo as on that date, till disposal of the Rule. The learned Advocate for the respondent communicated the said order to all the opposite parties to the said application, including the two appellants herein, for information and compliance.
( 3 ) ALLEGING wilful disobedience of and non-compliance with the said order by not allowing him to join the post of Assistant Superintendent (R. M. S.) the respondents filed an application for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties in the said Rule. On that application a Rule Nisi for contempt was issued by the learned single Judge who had issued the earlier Rule and passed the interim order. After hearing the parties the learned Judge made the Rule absolute against the two appellants and ordered them to pay a lump sum of Rs. 5,000/-io the respondent, with a direction that the said amount would be adjusted from the sums payable to him. Hence this appeal.
( 4 ) IN the application praying for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the appellants and others, the respondent asserted that on the day the order was passed by this Court, that was on Sept. 17, 1975, he was functioning as an Assistant Superintendent (R. M. S.) and was being paid as such, consequently, he was entitled to continue in the said post and receive all emoluments attached thereto pursuant to the order of status quo passed by this Court. The appellants contested the above claim of the respondent and submitted that consequent upon the issuance of the order of reversion dt. Mar. 10,1975 the respondent ceased to function as an Assistant Superintendent (R. M. S.) and that necessarily meant that on the day the interim order of this Court was passed he was functioning as an Inspector. There was therefore no violation of the order of this Court, the appellants urged.
( 5 ) IN negativing the contention of the appellants and accepting that of the respondent the learned single Judge held that the respondent's status as on Sept. 17, 1975 was that of an Assistant Superintendent of R. M. S. and the appellants were not justified in interpreting the order of the Court in their own way to hold that the respondent was functioning as an Inspector on that date. According to the learned Judge if there ap
