Back
2007 Supreme(All) 117
[2007(2) ADJ 613 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S. RAFAT ALAM AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.
JUSTICE PALOK BASU (RETD) ——Appellant
Versus
R.K. KULSHRESTHA —Respondent
(Contempt Appeal No. 24 of 2005, decided on 12th January, 2007)
C.S. Singh and S.P. Gupta, Addl. C.S.C. for the Appellant; Ranjit Saxena, A.G.A. for the Respondent.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 12—Charges for—Framed for alleged violation of ex parte interim order passed by High Court in writ petition—Alleged violation made after expiry of more than two weeks from date of receipt of application for vacation of that ex parte interim order—In view of mandatory provisions of Article 226(3) ex parte interim order cannot be treated to be in operation—It will automatically get vacated after two weeks—As such, order alleged to have been passed in violation of that interim order—Does not amount to contempt of Court—Law relating to this aspect—Elaborated—Consequence of non-compliance of Article 226(3)—Explained. [Paras 17 to 20]
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 11—Contempt of Court—Charges for—Framed against appellant, for violation of orders of High Court—Facts show that there was no such order of High Court which has been alleged to be violated—Moreover, order of High Court merely as interim stage, stayed proceedings in writ petition—Alleged violation could not be shown—Initiation of contempt proceedings—Misconceived—Deserve to be quashed. [Paras 21, 24 and 25]
- The appeal is directed against orders dated 7-11-2005 and 8-12-2005 in Contempt Petition No. 3689 of 2003, where the single judge directed compliance with a writ judgment dated 27-4-2004 and later framed charges for alleged violation of an interim order dated 12-11-2003. (!) (!)
- Respondent R.K. Kulshrestha, a retired judicial officer, was appointed Chairman of District Consumer Forum, Etah; his salary fixation led to disputes, excess withdrawals, government orders for recovery, suspension on 10-9-2003, and inquiry initiation. [25000188800002]
- Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 50320 of 2003 on 9-11-2003 seeking quashing of suspension and inquiry orders, payment of salary arrears, damages, and costs. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- On 12-11-2003, the High Court stayed the orders dated 4-9-2003 and 10-9-2003 prima facie finding them illegal; notice issued to respondents, including appellant as respondent No. 3. (!) (!) [25000188800003]
- Counter-affidavit and stay vacation application filed by respondents (including appellant) on 16-12-2003/18-12-2003; served on respondent's counsel on 15-12-2003; contempt petition filed by respondent on 15-12-2003 alleging non-payment of salary. [25000188800004][25000188800005] (!) (!)
- Salary for March 2003 to February 2004 paid in March/April 2004 via cheques deposited in respondent's account; regular salary paid thereafter. [25000188800007][25000188800008][25000188800020] (!)
- Writ petition decided on 27-4-2004 quashing suspension and inquiry orders, declaring respondent in service, directing payment of arrears, current salary, and 12% interest within two months, and reinstatement. [25000188800008]
- Contempt orders of 7-11-2005 noted non-compliance with interim order and final judgment regarding salary; granted last opportunity for compliance except interest. [25000188800009] (!)
- Order dated 8-12-2005 framed charge against appellant for wilful disobedience of interim order dated 12-11-2003 by issuing order dated 26-3-2004 (noted as 25-3-2004 or 26-3-2004). [25000188800010] (!) [25000188800014]
- Ex parte interim order dated 12-11-2003 against respondents 2, 3, 4 automatically vacated under Article 226(3) after two weeks from filing of stay vacation application on 16-12-2003/18-12-2003, as not disposed within that period. [25000188800015] (!) (!) (!) (!) [25000188800016][25000188800017][25000188800018][25000188800019]
- Action on 26-3-2004 appointing inquiry officer and directing inquiry not in violation of vacated interim order dated 12-11-2003; no extension or disposal of stay vacation application. [25000188800019]
- No direction in interim order dated 12-11-2003 for payment of salary; salary payments made as per departmental calculations; writ judgment did not address quantum or fixation of salary. [25000188800020] (!)
- In contempt proceedings, court cannot go beyond the specific order alleged to be violated, assess its correctness, or issue new directions. [25000188800021][25000188800022] (!)
- No deliberate defiance shown of interim order or writ judgment; contempt proceedings misconceived, misuse of process, lacking cause of action; quashed. [25000188800011][25000188800012][25000188800013][25000188800023][25000188800024]
- Appeal allowed; impugned orders set aside; contempt petition dismissed; no costs. [25000188800024] (!)
By the Court.—This appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred against the orders dated 7-11-2005 and 8-12-2005 of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 3689 of 2003. The order dated 7-11-2005 commands the appellant to comply with the judgment dated 27-4-2004 in letter and spirit except for payment of interest before the next date and file an affidavit failing which the Court may be left with no other option but to frame charges for trial and order dated 8-12-2005 holding appellant prima facie guilty of wilful and deliberate violation of the interim order dated 12-11-2003 and thereby frames charge as follows :
“You, Justice Palok Basu (Retired) President of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, show cause why you should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate defiance and wilful disobedience of the interim orders of this Court dated 12th November, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 50320 of 2003.”
2. We have heard, Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C.S. Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ranjit Saxena for the respondent. From voluminous pleadings and written arguments submitted by the parties and lengthy arguments advanced, the facts, as emerges may be narrated, as under, to facilitate adjudication of the matter.
3. The respondent, Sri R.K. Kulshrestha was a member of Higher Judicial Service and attained age of superannuation on 31-3-2000 while working as Additional District Judge, Moradabad. Vide State Government’s notification dated 2-2-2001 issued under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, the respondent was appointed as Chairman (full time), District Consumer Forum, Etah for a period of 5 years or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. The appellant was appointed as Chairman, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCDRC’) and by Government Order dated 25-9-2002 he was also appointed Head of the Department of District Consumer Redressal Forums of State of U.P. Salary of the respondent after his appointment as Chairman, District Consumer Forum was fixed at Rs. 19,506/- per month and he received the said salary regularly till February, 2003. It appears that the SCDRC vide its order dated 15-3-2003 allotted budget to various District Consumer Forums authorizing Chairman of respective District Consumer Forums to act as Drawing and Disbursing Authority. After getting power to act as Drawing and Disbursing Authority, the respondent withdrew his current salary as well as balance of his past salary by calculating the same at the rate of Rs. 22,400/- per month instead of 19,506/-. This matter was reported to the State Government vide SCDRC order dated 21-3-2003 whereupon the State Government vide order dated 31-5-2003 (Annexure-14 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal) conveyed its decision that the current salary of the respondent is 19,506/- per month and by misconstruing various Government Orders issued earlier, he has wrongly withdrawn excess amount, and, therefore, cancelled higher pay fixation and excess withdrawal of salary by the respondent and also to recover the excess amount drawn by him. A further direction was issued to make an inquiry against him for wrongful withdrawal of salary. The State Government’s letter was communicated to the respondent vide Registrar, SCDRC’s letter dated 31-6-2003 asking him to refund the excess amount withdrawn towards salary. Besides, pursuant to the State Government’s direction contained in the letter dated 31-5-2003, the appellant issued order dated 4-9-2003 appointing Registrar, SCDRC, as inquiry officer to hold inquiry against the respondent and by order dated 10-9-2003, respondent was placed under suspension and attached with District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat. A third order was p
