Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 646 of 2000
PETITIONER:
D.S. Poonia, W. Sudhirkumar Singh
RESPONDENT:
Yumnam Dimbajit Singh & Anr., Shri Yumnam Dimbajit Singh and anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2003
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Shivaraj V. Patil J.
These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the
common judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Contempt
Petition No. 1/2000. In this judgment, parties will be
referred to as they are arrayed in the contempt
petition. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of
these appeals are that respondent no. 2 was an employee
in Manipur Electronics Development Corporation
(MANITRON); pursuant to the instructions of the
Election Commission for computerization of electoral
rolls, respondent no. 2 was appointed on deputation for
a period of one year as Assistant Chief Electoral
Officer (ACEO) by an order dated 7.11.1997; since
computerization work could not be completed, his
deputation was sought to be extended for one more year
with effect from 12.11.1998; the petitioner challenged
this order of extension in Writ Petition Civil Rule No.
1187/98 inter alia contending that since respondent no.
2 was serving in a Corporation, an autonomous body it
was not permissible to take him on deputation; only a
State services Officer could be taken on deputation and
not an officer belonging to the Corporation; accepting
this contention, the writ petition was allowed quashing
the order of extension given to respondent no. 2;
while quashing the order, from the relevant file the
High Court found that the services of the second
respondent as ACEO was no more required in the
Department of Election as computerization of electoral
rolls had been completed; the respondent no. 2 was only
B-Tech (Electronics and Communication) and not a
computer engineer; despite the office objection raised,
respondent no. 1 extended the period of deputation of
respondent no. 2 for one more year by overruling the
objections. Respondent no. 2 filed writ Appeal No.
108/99 against the order passed in the writ petition;
the writ appeal was admitted on 24.6.1999 and an
interim order was passed in the following terms: -
"In the meanwhile, the impugned
judgment of the learned single judge in
Civil Rule No. 1187/98 is stayed. But
we direct that the deputation of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
appellant in Writ Appeal No. 108/99, Sri
W.Sudhirkumar Singh will not be extended
beyond the existing period of deputation
expiring on 11.11.1999. We further
direct that the Draft Recruit Rules for
recruitment to the post of Assistant
Chief Election Officer will be finalized
by the end of September, 1999 and
recruitment to the post of Assistant
Chief Election Officer will be completed
by 11.11.1999."
In the aforementioned interim order, respondent
no. 1 was restrained from extending the period of
deputation of the respondent no. 2 beyond 11.11.1999.
At the same time, a direction also was given for
framing the recruitment rules for recruitment to the
post of ACEO and to finalise the recruitment before
11.11.1999.
When these directions given in the above extracted
interim order passed by the Division Bench were not
followed, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt
Petition No. 357/99. Responding to the direction
issued in this contempt petition, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 produced copy of the order dated
11.11.1999 passed by the respondent no. 1 purportedly
in compliance with the direction given in the said
interim order. Looking to the said order, the court on
15.12.1999 closed the Civil Contempt Petition No.
357/99 so far it related to the respondent no. 1.
Despite the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the
respondent no. 1, at the time of hearing of the Civil
Contempt Petition No. 357/99 and obtaining a
favaourable order in respect of the respondent no. 1,
the respondent no. 2 was still functioning as ACEO as
appeared in the letter dated 30.11.1999. Further, the
respondent no. 2 had received goods supplied by
MANITRON on 13.12.1999 as ACEO which led to filing of
the present contempt petition which was originally
registered as Contempt Case (C) No. 4/2000. On
3.2.2000 when the conduct of the respondent no. 2 was
brought to the notice of the court, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the
respondent no. 2 had acted on his own and the
respondent no. 1 had not entrusted such work to him.
Although Contempt Petition (C) No. 4/2000 was finally
heard and reserved for judgment, considering the
gravity of the offence that the court’s order dated
15.12.1999 had been obtained by the respondent no. 1 by
practicing fraud, the High Court was of the opinion
that the conduct of the respondent no. 1 came within
the purview of the definition of criminal contempt
under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In this view, the court allowed respondent nos.1 and 2
to file further affidavits, if any. Thus, the Civil
Contempt Petition No. 4/2000 came to be converted into
Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/2000. The Division
Bench of the High Court, after elaborately considering
the rival submissions made on either side, passed the
impugned order punishing the respondent no. 1
sentencing him to incarceration for one month and to
pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and the respondent no. 2 for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
incarceration for 15 days and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-. Under these circumstances, the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 have filed these appeals.
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional
Solicitor General, on behalf of respondent no. 1 (the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 646/2000) urged that
the services of respondent No.2 (the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 627/2000) were to be availed on
deputation from MANITRON for the purpose of
computerization of the electoral rolls; after the
passing of the order by the court not to extend the
term of respondent no. 2 on deputation, his term on
deputation was not extended; however, having regard to
the incompletion of the work and in the interest of
early completion of the work, his services were taken
on contract basis; other steps were taken pursuant to
the direction of the High Court to fill up the post of
ACEO in accordance with rules; the respondent no. 2 was
repatriated even if it was found that although there
was some delay in repatriation which was not
intentional. He drew our attention to the relevant
portions in the documents placed on record to show that
there was neither deliberate disobedience of the order
passed by the High Court nor any fraud was played on
the court to say that the respondents committed
criminal contempt. He submitted that both the
respondents tendered unconditional apology for the
faults said to have been committed by them which the
High Court could have graciously accepted. Similar
submissions were made on behalf of the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 627/2000. On behalf of respondent
no. 1, submissions were made supporting the impugned
order.
Having perused the impugned order in which all the
contentions are elaborately dealt with, it is difficult
for us to say that all was well with the appellants in
these appeals. As can be seen from the interim order
passed on 24.6.1999, the order of learned Single Judge
made in writ petition was stayed; direction was given
not to extend the deputation of respondent no. 2 beyond
11.11.1999, direction was given to finalise the draft
recruitment rules for recruitment to the post of ACEO
and that the recruitment to the said post will be
completed by 11.11.1999. The period of deputation of
respondent no. 2 was not extended on deputation beyond
11.11.1999 in terms of the aforementioned interim
order. However, in order to complete the remaining
work, his services were availed on contract basis; even
that contract was cancelled later; this is to be
appreciated in the light of compliance of the other
directions given in the same interim order; draft
recruitment rules were made and finalized but the post
could not be filled up as the petitioner obtained stay
of the rules by filing a writ petition; in the
meanwhile, certain service benefits were given to him;
the appellants had tendered unconditional apology
before the High Court; the respondent no. 2 has been
repatriated. However, from the events and facts
reflected in the impugned order, it appears to us,
certain wrong statements were made by respondent Nos. 1
and 2, may be with anxiety to defend themselves. This
Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar vs. Dhani
Ram & Ors. [(2002) 1 SCCC 766] in paras 9 and 10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
observed thus:-
"9. Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 has indicated a caution
that while dealing with the powers of
contempt, the court should be generous
in discharging the contemner if he
tenders an apology to the satisfaction
of the court. In the present case the
apology tendered was found to be not
genuine by the Tribunal. We are
dismayed, if not distressed, that
despite delineating on all the steps
adopted by the appellant for challenging
the order of the Tribunal before the
High Court and despite the fact that the
appellant had implemented the order even
though there was no time schedule to do
so, the Tribunal has chosen to depict
the apology tendered by the appellant as
one without contrition.
10. Section 13 of the Contempt of
Courts Act says that notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, no court shall
impose a sentence
"unless it is satisfied that
the contempt is of such a
nature that it substantially
interferes, or tends
substantially to interfere
with the due course of
justice"."
In that case, the Central Administrative Tribunal
had given direction to publish a fresh seniority list
but no time limit was fixed. When the application for
contempt was filed, in reply, it was submitted that
order had been complied with during pendency of the
writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal punished the contemnors in spite
of the contemnors tendering an apology. In the context
of the facts of the said case, this Court observed that
in the absence of any time limit fixed for complying
with the order, the Tribunal should have directed first
the contemnors to implement the direction in the
absence of any time limit fixed. Thereafter, action
could have been taken for non-implementation after the
expiry of the time frame. This Court went on to
observe in para 12 thus:-
"We have chosen to say so much in this
case to give a message to the Tribunal
that contempt jurisdiction is not to be
exercised casually but only sparingly
and in very deserving cases. It is
appropriate to bear in mind the adage
"It is good to have the power of giant,
but not good to use it always"
In our considered view, in the light of what is
stated above and having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case, it would subserve the ends
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
of justice if the impugned order is modified by setting
aside the sentence of incarceration passed against both
the appellants and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed on
each of them. We accordingly modify the impugned
order. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 646/2000 shall
pay cost of Rs.5,000/- within six weeks which amount
shall be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.
The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 627/2000 shall pay
Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent no. 1 within six
weeks.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly in the
above terms.