Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Ashwani Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 400 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amarendra Pratap Singh.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against the judgment passed by the writ Court. The court emphasized that the Contempt Court should not travel beyond the four corners of the order alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged.

Headnote:
Contempt Jurisdiction - Special Appeal - Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - U.P. Government Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 - The judgment discusses the maintainability of a special appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction, the scope of contempt jurisdiction, and the legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the Division Bench under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The court held that the special appeal is maintainable as the learned Single Judge exceeded her jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the dispute between the parties, especially in respect of the nature of the inquiry to be conducted before the services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-petitioner was appointed on a contract basis to execute data feeding work. After certain irregularities, the contract was canceled, and the services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated. The appellant-petitioner challenged the termination, and the writ petition was allowed, quashing the termination order. However, the appellant-petitioner was found guilty of irregularities in a subsequent inquiry, leading to another writ petition. Alleging non-compliance of the order, the contempt proceedings were initiated, resulting in the order under appeal, which dismissed the contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Single Judge exceeded her jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the dispute between the parties, especially in respect of the nature of the inquiry to be conducted before the services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated. The special appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Contempt Judge in Contempt No. 588 of 2021 were quashed. The Contempt Petition No. 588 of 2021 is restored to the board of the learned Contempt Judge for fresh decision.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the special appeal, the scope of contempt jurisdiction, and the legality of the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Contempt Judge in Contempt No. 588 of 2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the special appeal is maintainable as the learned Single Judge exceeded her jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the dispute between the parties, especially in respect of the nature of the inquiry to be conducted before the services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated. The court also emphasized the need for the Contempt Court to be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against the judgment passed by the writ Court.
Final Decision: The special appeal is allowed, and the judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Contempt Judge in Contempt No. 588 of 2021 are quashed. The Contempt Petition No. 588 of 2021 is restored to the board of the learned Contempt Judge for fresh decision. There will be no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. This special appeal arises in respect of an order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Contempt Judge in Contempt No. 588 of 2021 whereby the contempt petition has been dismissed.

2. The order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Contempt Judge is sought to be challenged before this Division Bench in intra-court appeal referable to Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

3. We have heard Shri A.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted Shri Amarendra Pratap Singh for the appellant and Shri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

4. At the outset learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the special appeal contending that since the order under appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction whereby the contempt petition has been dismissed, this special appeal is not maintainable. It is the submission of the learned State Counsel that in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court appeal does not lie before a Division Bench of this Court from a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt jurisdiction, specially while learned Single Judge dismisses the contempt petition recording a finding that no contempt of the order passed by the Writ Court is made out.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant has submitted that the submission made by the learned State Counsel does not have any force considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that learned Single Judge while exercising the contempt jurisdiction has travelled beyond her jurisdiction inasmuch as the order under appeal touches upon the merit of the dispute between the parties and observations made in this regard by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal are manifestly beyond contempt jurisdiction .

6. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the records available before this Court.

7. Before adverting to the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the respective parties, we may note certain facts of this case in brief.

8. The appellant-petitioner is said to have been appointed on contract basis to execute the work relating to data feeding by means of an order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Lucknow/Chairman, Prayokta Prabhar Samiti, Tehsil Sadar, Lucknow. By the said order dated 01.12.2009 appellant-petitioner and another person, namely, Mohd. Rafe Khan were required to execute a contract which was entered into on 01.12.2009 between the Sub Divisional Officer and the appellant-petitioner. The said contract is on record, according to which, the appellant-petitioner along with Mohd. Rafe Khan was required to execute the work relating to data feeding and in lieu thereof they were entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.60,000/-per annum. It was also agreed between the parties that the appellant-petitioner and Mohd. Rafe Khan shall jointly execute the work. The appellant-petitioner and Mohd. Rafe Khan also agreed that in case any irregularity, after enquiry, is found the contract can be cancelled and accordingly they may be removed and in such an exigency they will have no objection.

9. It is clear that in respect of certain irregularities a show cause notice was given to the appellant-petitioner on 20.08.2018 who submitted his explanation on 21.08.2018. The explanation submitted by the appellant-petitioner was considered by the District Level Prayokta Prabhar Samiti which on 27.08.2018 recommended that contract be cancelled and the services of the petitioner-appellant be terminated. On the said recommendation an order was passed on 01.09.2018 whereby the contract was cacelled and accordingly the services of the petitioner-appellant were also termi