The act of fabricating and filing documents on behalf of the Union of India by an individual constitutes criminal contempt and is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

A suo motu Criminal Contempt Case No. 8/2019 was initiated on the basis of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.03.2019 in W.P. No. 38412/2014, wherein the Court passed the following order:

"BVNJ/HTNPJ:

21.03.2019

Sri. L. Harish Kumar, learned Central Government of Standing Counsel has submitted his memo appearance on behalf of respondent No.3 today. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Sri Ramdas for the petitioner/respondent No.1 who is appearing in-person and learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri L. Harish Kumar for respondent No.3.

3. Petitioner has filed an application i.e., I.A.2/2019 seeking initiation of suo moto action for criminal contempt against respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity). According to petitioner, this writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of brevity) in O.A.No.21/2011 and order dated 27.05.2014 passed in R.A.No.41/2014 by the Tribunal and to dismiss O.A.No.21/2011 filed by respondent No.1.

4. Pursuant to service of notice in this writ petition to respondents, respondent No.1 initially appeared through counsel and filed statement of objections on 31.07.2018. Respondent No.2 being the Governing Council of the petitioner institution has been transposed as petitioner No.2. Respondent No.3 is the Union of India.

5. Initially, the Union of India was represented by Smt. Kavitha.H.C. By order dated 17.07.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Registry was directed to delete the name of Smt.Kavitha.H.C. and to indicate the name of Sri. L. Harish Kumar, as Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

6. According to the petitioner, on 2.3.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., respondent No.1 went to the office of the counsel for the petitioner so as to serve statement of objections said to be of Union of India. The junior counsel Smt. Radha Y., in the office of the counsel for the petitioner refused to accept the same as it was not being served by the counsel for Union of India and by respondent No.1, who is a private respondent and the original applicant before the Tribunal. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner received the copy of the statement of objection said to have been of Union of India by speed post on 04.03.2019. Suspecting foul play, the clerk of petitioner's counsel is said to have met Sri L. Harish Kumar at his office and found that he was not available and his clerk Sri Rajesh was available. Sri Rajesh informed that no statement of objections had been prepared on behalf of Union of India and that Sri L. Harish Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India was unwell and that independent action would be taken for withdrawing any application or affidavit said to have been filed on behalf of Union of India before the Court.

7. Contending that respondent No.1 has prepared the statement of objections on behalf of Union of India and has attempted to serve the copy of the same on the counsel for the petitioner and thereafter has filed the same before this Court, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that suo moto action of criminal contempt may be taken against respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Act. Our attention has been directed to Annexure - K appended to the application which is a copy of the statement of objection in the name of the Union of India. Affidavit verifying the said statement of objections is in the name of Sri L. Harish Kumar, Central Governmen