Full Judgment Text
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Contempt Case (C) No.162/2008
% Date of Decision : March 17, 2008
Mr. Arvind Rishi …..Petitioner
Through : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary,
Mr. Manish Jain,
Mr. Pradeep Chandel and
Ms. Puja Sharma,
Advocates
Versus
Mr. H. P. Tripathi .…Respondent
Through : NEMO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? No
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J : (Oral)
1. The petitioner, Mr. Arvind Rishi, is an employee of Life
Insurance Corporation of India. He is facing disciplinary
proceedings primarily on the charge of insubordination and
breach of office discipline. A charge sheet to that effect has
admittedly been issued to him. In that connection, he moved
Writ Petition (C) No.6720/2005 in this Court along with a Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.4797/2005 seeking stay of the
disciplinary proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that despite
repeated requests to the Enquiry Officer, relevant documents
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 1 of 10
have not been supplied to him and he was not permitted to
produce witnesses in support of his case. While pressing for
interim orders, the petitioner alleged that a close reading of the
entire charge sheet would show that the charge sheet itself also
amounts to an act of vendetta against the petitioner and
therefore, with a view to demonstrate this aspect of the matter,
the petitioner is seeking liberty to produce various documents
and witnesses. This allegation was traversed by the respondent
on the plea that only those documents and those witnesses can
be produced which have a direct relevance to the charge sheet
issued to the petitioner. In support of his case in the aforesaid
Writ Petition (C) No.6720/2005, the petitioner also filed an
additional list of documents with an affidavit dated 19.9.2007. In
that context, on 21.9.2007, in the said Civil Miscellaneous
Application No.4797/2005, this Court passed the following
order:-
“Learned senior counsel for the respondents has fairly
conceded that the photocopies of documents at
Sl.No.1 & 4 will be given to the petitioner. Various
other documents which hae been demanded by the
petitioner are not relevant and have no connection
with the charge sheet.
As far as non-supply of other documents are
concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to raise
such objection as may be available to him, at any
appropriate stage, in accordance with law. As far as
the production of witnesses are concerned, the
petitioner is granted liberty to approach the enquiry
officer and make a request to him giving the list of
witnesses which has been filed along with an affidavit
on 19.09.2007. It is hoped that the enquiry officer will
look into the list of witnesses sought to be produced
by the petitioner in a reasonable manner and pass
appropriate orders accordingly. On handing over of the
documents and after appropriate order has been
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 2 of 10
passed on the request of the petitioner for producing
witnesses, it will be open to the enquiry officer to
conclude the proceedings.
No further orders are required to be passed. Interim
order dated 20.04.2005 stand varied in terms of the
order passed in Court today.
Application stands disposed of.”
2. A reading of this order shows that counsel for the
respondent conceded in court that out of the additional list of
documents filed by the petitioner, two documents are relevant
to the proceedings, and that photocopies of the same would be
provided to the petitioner. As regards the other documents in
that list, this Court said that, “it would be open to the petitioner
to raise such objection as may be available to him, at any
appropriate stage, in accordance with law”, and as far as the
production of witnesses was concerned, the petitioner was
granted liberty to approach the Enquiry Officer for that purpose.
In this regard, this Court further ordered that, “It is hoped that
the Enquiry Officer will look into the list of witnesses sought to
be produced by the petitioner in a reasonable manner and pass
appropriate orders accordingly.”
3. The minutes of the hearing held on 19.2.2008 thereafter
before the Enquiry Officer show that an extensive discussion has
taken place with regard to the documents demanded by the
petitioner. Whilst two of the documents from that list were
supplied, the other eleven documents were not. According to
the Enquiry Officer, they were not relevant to the charge. The
Enquiry Officer also offered to have the relevant section of the
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 3 of 10
staff regulations mentioned in the charge sheet be made
available to the petitioner, if he so desired. Along with this, the
Enquiry Officer stated that if the guidelines for Enquiry Officers
for conducting the enquiry are available with the personnel
department, they too would be made available to the petitioner
on the next hearing. In response, the defence assistant of the
petitioner again asked the Enquiry Officer whether the rest of
the eleven documents demanded were not relevant to the
enquiry. He also asked the Enquiry Officer to elaborate the word
“relevant” . The Enquiry Officer responded as follows :-
“The documents which I have said as non-relevant, are
not directly/indirectly connected with the charge
mentioned in the charge-sheet as the charges are not
for non-attending the office but for the language
written on the applications submitted by you.”
Not satisfied with this, the defence assistant again pressed
his case for those documents claiming that his defence would be
prejudiced in their absence. He now put the following question
to the Enquiry Officer:-
“.........I now once again request the Enquiry Officer to
first please state whether he has seen these 11
documents.”
In response, the Enquiry Officer stated as follows :-
“I have not seen the 11 documents referred above but
from the nature of the documents demanded I have
come to the conclusion that these documents are not
relevant to the charges as the charges are not for non-
attending the office but for the language written on
the applications submitted by you. As regards the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court referred by you I
have to state nothing about it. I have been appointed
as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority and as
Enquiry Officer I have to conduct the enquiry as per
guidelines for fair conduct of enquiry proceedings.”
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 4 of 10
At this stage, the defence assistant appears to have pounced
upon the statement of the Enquiry Officer that he has not seen
these documents and contended that it was unfair on his part to
have concluded that those documents are not relevant without
actually seeing them. He then requested for an opportunity to
prove the relevance of those documents one by one so that it
can be analysed whether the enquiry was being conducted fairly
or not. The Enquiry Officer replied that the documents which he
felt were relevant to the charge have been provided. In
response to this, the defence assistant appearing for the
petitioner stated that since the Enquiry Officer has decided that
these documents will not be provided to him, and since his
request for a chance to prove the relevance of those documents
has been refused, the claim of the petitioner that the
respondent does not want to conduct a fair enquiry is
vindicated.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the denial
of copies of the documents demanded by the petitioner in the
aforesaid hearing constitutes a deliberate and malicious
violation of the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by this Court. He
states that as a consequence of this order, which had permitted
the petitioner to raise any objection with regard to non-supply of
the documents, it was the duty of the Enquiry Officer to see
each document and, thereafter, discuss the relevance of each
such document before taking a decision thereon, and since he
has clearly not examined every single document demanded
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 5 of 10
individually, nor had he taken any decision about its relevance
after recording arguments of both sides on that aspect, the
same constitutes contempt.
5. Apart from this, the petitioner has also raised a number of
other grievances with regard to the nature of the proceedings as
also the manner in which the minutes of the proceedings were
recorded to demonstrate a lack of fairness in the enquiry. Since,
to my mind, these aspects are not directly connected with this
petition, I do not wish to comment on them, and it would be
open to the petitioner to raise these allegations elsewhere , if he
is so advised.
6. As regards the non-supply of the documents, the
petitioner's case, stated in paragraph 8 of this petition, is that in
fact, the Enquiry Officer bluntly refused to handover the said
documents and stated that the proceedings would be done
according to his choice and that he refused to see the order
passed by this Court on 21.9.2007.
7. On going through the copies of the proceedings annexed
by the petitioner, I do not think any case of contempt is made
out. The order of this Court dated 21.9.2007 is very clear. It
merely states that in case other documents are not supplied,
and for any reason, the petitioner is prejudiced thereby, it would
be open to him to seek redressal “at any appropriate stage, in
accordance with law”. Significantly, there is no specific mandate
by this Court for the supply of those documents. After stating
that it would be open to the petitioner to raise any objection to
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 6 of 10
non-supply of any of the documents at any appropriate stage in
accordance with law, this Court has merely stated that, on
handing over of the documents and after appropriate order is
passed on the request of the petitioner for producing witnesses,
it will be open to the Enquiry Officer to conclude the
proceedings. It is obvious that the documents referred to over
here are the two documents which were conceded as being
relevant by the counsel for the respondent before the Court and
were therefore required to be handed over to him, and not with
regard to the other documents for which it was stated that it is
open to the petitioner to raise any other objection under the law.
An examination of the minutes shows clearly that there has
been due application of mind to the relevance of these
documents by the Enquiry Officer. It further shows that the
Enquiry Officer repeatedly asserted that these documents were
not material. He has also given reasons for that conclusion by
stating that they are not directly/indirectly connected with the
charges mentioned in the charge sheet because the charges are
not for non-attendance of the office, but for the language
written on the applications submitted by the petitioner. On being
pressed by the defence assistant, the Enquiry Officer has again
made it clear that although he has not seen the documents
sought, “but from the nature of the documents demanded I have
come to the conclusion that these documents are not relevant
to the charge.....”
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 7 of 10
8. In my view, what has been directed by this Court on
21.9.2007 is merely that it is open to the petitioner to agitate
whatever objections may be open to him for non-supply of those
documents in accordance with law. He has raised his objections
to the non-supply of those documents before the Enquiry
Officer. The Enquiry Officer has rejected the demand on the
ground that in his opinion, these documents are not relevant to
the charges brought against the petitioner. Whether this
decision is correct or incorrect, may or may not constitute a
fresh cause of action giving the petitioner the right to institute
any fresh proceedings at the appropriate stage, including, inter
alia, at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, but the
same certainly does not constitute contempt.
9. As regards the allegations raised by the petitioner in
paragraph 8 to the effect that the Enquiry Officer has bluntly
refused to handover the documents, I do not think that this is
borne out from the records. Similarly, I do not find anything in
the proceedings that could be taken as an indication that the
Enquiry officer has decided to proceed arbitrarily after refusing
to see the order of 21.9.2007 or that the proceedings conducted
by him in the matter of the supply of documents was in any way
contrary to the spirit of the said order passed by this Court. To
my mind, there is no abuse of the process of law, nor is there
any deliberate or willful contempt made out.
10. If anything, the tenor of the defence assistant's approach,
as reflected from the proceedings of that day shows that it was
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 8 of 10
the defence assistant who was intent on badgering the Enquiry
Officer by persisting with his demand even after the same was
unequivocally refused and the reason for such refusal also
furnished. He seems to be under the impression that simply
because this court stated that it would be open to him to raise
objections to the non-supply of the documents sought at the
appropriate stage and in accordance with law, it had afforded
him some sort of licence for badgering and hectoring the
Enquiry Officer on the subject even after he had given his
decision on the point.
11. The order of 21.9.2007 deals with two aspects, that is, (a)
the non-supply of certain documents sought by the petitioner;
and (b) the non-production of certain witnesses whose presence
was requisitioned by the petitioner in support of his defence.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, seems to be mixing up the
directions made in respect of these two aspects. The direction of
this Court that, “it is hoped that the Enquiry Officer will look into
the list of witnesses sought to be produced in a reasonable
manner and pass appropriate orders accordingly”, is sought to
be pressed by counsel for the petitioner for the proposition that
this should be read as a specific direction to the Enquiry Officer
to look into the list of documents sought by the petitioner in a
reasonable manner and pass appropriate orders accordingly,
and therefore, since individual documents have not been looked
at or examined and separate orders concerning each document
have not been passed, the Enquiry Officer is in contempt. I do
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 9 of 10
not think the order of 21.9.2007 can be interpreted in such
manner. There is no specific direction by this Court to the
Enquiry Officer to look at and to examine every single document
individually and thereafter pronounce specific orders with regard
to the relevance of that document.
12. I find that in addition, the petitioner has also prayed for a
direction to the respondent “to record the enquiry proceedings
in verbatim”. Although from the proceedings of 19.2.2008
placed on the record by the petitioner, which have also been
signed by him on each page, it appears that a reasonably
accurate record of the proceedings is being kept, this prayer
must be declined for the reason that the same cannot be a
subject matter of contempt proceedings since no such direction
is shown to have been given by this Court. This prayer is
therefore dismissed.
13. Under the circumstances, and for the reasons stated, the
contempt petition is dismissed.
CMs No.3938, 3939/2008
14. Since the main petition has been dismissed, these
applications do not survive and are also dismissed as such.
Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.
March 17, 2008
OPN.
Cont.Cas.(C) No.162/2008 Page 10 of 10