Contempt Of Courts Act | Appeal u/s 19 Maintainable Against Directions Regarding Merits Of Dispute Even If There's No Punishment Order: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be maintainable against any direction passed by a bench in relation to the merits of the disputes between the parties, even though there is no order of punishment.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that if there is no order...
The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be maintainable against any direction passed by a bench in relation to the merits of the disputes between the parties, even though there is no order of punishment.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that if there is no order of punishment, then an appeal is not maintainable. At the same time, the Court reiterated that an would be maintainable against any direction passed by the single bench relating to the merits of the dispute in contempt proceedings.
As per brief facts, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding in the Central Reserve Police Force. Subsequently, he was removed from service in July 1995. His appeal against the order of punishment was rejected. Thus, he instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court challenging the order of punishment.
On December 24, 2019, the division bench of the high court stated that the respondent must be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The order imposing the penalty of removal from service was set aside. However, the order was not complied with, and the respondent instituted contempt proceedings before the high court. On March 8, 2021, he was reinstated in service and was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on a notional basis with effect from October 17, 2021 by an order dated March 22, 2023. He superannuated from service on March 31, 2023.
The single judge of the high court passed an order in the contempt proceedings on June 2, 2023. The court noted that even if the date of the implementation of minor penalty is October 16, 2018, the respondent would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of Inspector General from the year 2021 to his date of retirement, that is, March 31, 2023.
Therefore, the judge noted that there has been a willful disobedience of the directions passed by the division bench on December 24, 2019. The court held the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) and Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) guilty of contempt of court. However, the court granted them the opportunity to issue fresh order granting promotion to the respondent to the rank of IG to bring him at par with his immediate junior as per the merit cum seniority list at the time of the appointment.
Subsequently, a Letter Patent Appeal was filed before the division bench against the order of the single judge. However, the division bench rejected the Letters Patent Appeal as not being maintainable stating that the appeal would not be maintainable since no punishment was imposed by the single judge and the observations made by the single judge were not construed as crystallising any right in favour of the respondent, as the two requirements under Section 19.
The issue that fell before the Supreme Court was whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of singe judge was maintainable. The court concluded it was maintainable. It relied on the judgment of the two judge bench of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006) wherein it was held that the appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.
"Following the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd., it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt."
The court held that the specific findings of the single judge that the two authorities were guilty of contempt for the willful disobedience of the directions passed by the division bench dated December 24, 2019 and that the respondent would be entitled to promotion needs to be determined in regards to Section 19.
In this regard, the court held: “Reading the entirety of the order of the single judge, it is clear that besides holding that the appellants (who were the respondents before the Single Judge) were guilty of contempt of court, there is a crystallized finding that the respondent herein was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect from 2021.”
The court held that although the issue of whether the authorities were guilty of contempt is not amenable to Section 19, the finding that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG was amenable to an appeal in terms of the law laid down in Midnapore Peoples'Bank Ltd.
In this regard, reference was made to the following statement in Midnapore Peoples :
"If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)."
The order of the division bench was set aside and restored the Letters Patent Appeal to be heard on merits. The court has directed that no coercive steps would be taken against the authorities till the next date of listing before the Delhi High Court.
Case details: Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar dixit, Civil Appeal No. 8129-8130 of 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 550