Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 1053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHIL KUMAR PALO, J.
Maya Devi Dewangan - Appellant
Versus
M.R. Meena - Respondent
Cont. Petition No. 1744 of 2013
Decided On : 23-06-2016
For the Appellant :Nilesh Kotecha, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
The court established the limitations of its power in contempt cases and emphasized that a mere error of judgment with regard to legal position cannot constitute contempt of court.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Non-compliance with Court Order - Contempt of Courts Act, Article 215 - 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Writ Petition No. 13321/2011 - [Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, Article 215] - The court discussed the non-compliance with the order dated 17-10-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13321/2011, which was related to the production of service records, payment of salary, GPF, pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits. The court referred to the provisions of section 409, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, and sections 5(2) and 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the context of the respondent's actions and the petitioner's claims. The court also cited relevant case law to establish the legal framework for contempt proceedings and the limitations of the court's power in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition claiming non-compliance with the court's order for the production of service records and payment of retiral benefits. The respondents argued that the petitioner's husband had been involved in criminal proceedings and had already received the benefits he was entitled to.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had passed a representation in compliance with the court's directions and that no substantial relief could be granted in the contempt petition. The court also noted that a fresh cause of action had arisen for seeking redressal before an appropriate forum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-compliance with the court's order, the petitioner's entitlement to retiral benefits, and the legal implications of the respondent's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents was made out, citing relevant case law to establish the limitations of the court's power in contempt cases.
Final Decision: The contempt petition proceedings were dropped, and the petition was dismissed. The respondents were discharged, and the petitioner was given the liberty to resort to separate proceedings if advised.
SUSHIL KUMAR PALO, J.
1. This Contempt Petition under section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the respondents have not been complied with the order dated 17-10-2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 13321/2011.
2. It is contended that in Writ Petition No. 13321/2011 relief was claimed for production of service records, to pay full salary, GPF, pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and for other reliefs deemed fit.
3. This Court vide order dated 17-10-2011 disposed of the above petition with the following directions :
"In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent/authorities for mitigation of her grievance by filing a proper representation. It needs no emphasis to state that in case the petitioner does so along with a certified copy of the order passed today as well as a copy of the petition within two weeks from the date of obtaining the same, the respondent/authorities shall look into the same and pass orders expeditiously in accordance with law."
4. The petitioner claimed that he approached various authorities submitting representation for the pension, GPF and other retiral benefits of her husband Late R.D. Dewangan along with certified copy of the impugned order. The respondents wilfully and deliberately did not comply the said order to harass the petitioner. The said act of the respondents lowered the prestige of this Court, not only in the eyes of the employees but also the public at large. The petitioner prayed to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents and to punish them.
5. The respondents submitted that their reply on 9-1-2014 in which the above said contentions were denied. It is asserted that Late Shri R.D. Dewangan (husband of the petitioner) while serving in the post of Technical Assistant (Grade-II) at Seoni Depot of Food Corporation of India, had committed offence under section 409 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 5(2) and 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the year 1981, he was immediately put under suspension by the District Manager of Food Corporation of India, Jabalpur vide order dated 18-11-1981. This order was later confirmed by the Regional Senior Manager FCI, Bhopal by order dated 28-11-1981. The CBI after investigation registered offence against Late Shri R.D. Dewangan and filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur. He was then dismissed from his services and penalty was imposed on him on 20-12-1983. In Special Case No. 17/88 Shri Dewangan was sentenced for 5 years imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, he preferred an appeal. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2437/1997 which was decided by the High Court on 7-1-2009 and he was acquitted.
6. During the pendency of criminal appeal, he filed Writ Petition No. 3822/99 claiming terminal benefits which was disposed of by this Court on 25-10-1999 with a direction to pay admissible dues to the petitioner within three months. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any further amount which was communicated accordingly to him on 14-3-2000.
7. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred LPA No. 17/00 which was subsequently dismissed on 9-9-2005 by this Court. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, Late Shri R.D. Dewangan filed the Writ Petition No. 6399/2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 9-5-2013.
8. Shri R.D. Dewangan died on 28-4-2009. After his death, his wife the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13321/2011 in which the above direction was issued. Earlier, when representation was filed by Shri Dewangan on 20-3-2012, entire retiral benefits was earlier given to him. He was communicated vide letter dated 14-3-2000 that final payment of CPF, difference of CPF, wage revision, etc including bonus was paid to him, therefore,
