Allahabad High Court
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj In Person vs Shri Pramod Chand Mody Chairman Cbdt ... on 11 May, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Reserved Court No. - 20 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1696 of 2020 Applicant :- Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj In Person Opposite Party :- Shri Pramod Chand Mody Chairman Cbdt North Block New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- In Person Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mohd. Shahan Ulla,Varun Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj in person and Shri Hanu Bhaskar alongwith Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
The instant petition has been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 seeking to punish the respondent for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the writ court dated 17.04.2020 and 14.07.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.36879 (S/B) of 2019 (Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India through Chairman CBDT).
Submission of the petitioner in person is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ Petition No.36879 (S/B) of 2019.
After hearing the parties concerned, the writ court on 17.04.2020 had passed an order, copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.1 and specifically directed that the respondent shall not fix any date in the inquiry proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet/memorandum dated 17.06.2019, till the next date of listing.
It is further urged that the said order dated 17.04.2020 was confirmed by the writ court by means of order dated 14.07.2020. It is also stated in the petition that the copies of the said order was directed to be served on the petitioner and the respondent through the Senior Registrar of this Court. In paragraph-11 of the petition, it is stated that the copy of the order passed by the writ court dated 17.04.2020 and 14.07.2020 apart from being served through the Senior Registrar was also sent by the petitioner through post and a copy of the said letter and its postal receipt has been brought on record as annexure no.3 to the petition.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the order passed by the writ court were served on the respondent but despite the same, a notice was issued from the respondent dated 10.08.2020 which was served on the petitioner on 25.08.2020 at 6.30 P.M. to be present for the next date on 26.08.2020 in New Delhi.
It is urged that once the order dated 17.04.2020 and 14.07.2020 were communicated to the respondent, there was no occasion for the respondent to have issued the letter dated 10.08.2020 scheduling a meeting on 26.08.2020, which was in direct conflict with the order passed by the writ court and ex-facie contempt of the order passed by the writ court was made out.
It is in view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the respondent has deliberately violated the order passed by the writ court and must be summoned and punished appropriately.
Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the submissions of the petitioner in person has stated that the petitioner has not stated the facts correctly. It has been pointed out that no where in the petition filed by the petitioner in person, it has been disclosed that on which date the orders passed by the High Court were communicated to the respondent.
It is further urged that the order dated 14.07.2020 was received by Smt. Alka Bhargav Singh, who is not the respondent but the Inquiry Officer, on 25.08.2020 and immediately on becoming aware of the order passed by the court, she issued another letter clearly stating that the scheduled hearing for 26.08.2020 is adjourned.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner could not disclose that the orders passed by the Court were actually served on the respondent who is the Chairman CBDT rather on the own showing of the petitioner, he himself sent the copy of the orders to Smt. Alka Bhargav Singh who was the Inquiry Officer.
It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the orders were communicated to the respondent. From a careful perusal of the letter dated 10.08.2020, it would indicate that it narrates the entire facts and circumstances including that the matter was initially fixed for 27.02.2020. Since the petitioner did not appear and information was received from the counsel for the petitioner that the matter is engaging the attention of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow and thus the proceedings may be deferred.
In deference to the aforesaid, the matter was adjourned. However, the petitioner was required to inform the status of the proceedings before the High Court as to whether there is any stay on proceedings or not.
Again the matter was listed for 18.03.2020, on which date, the Presenting Officer informed that on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not appear. The emphasis is that till 18.03.2020, there was no communication regarding the order passed by the High Court. Since the order of the High Court had been passed only subsequently on 17.04.2020 when there was a lock down on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
The said order was confirmed on 14.07.2020 when the interim order granted earlier was continued till further orders of the Court and even then no information was given. It is only thereafter when the situation started normalizing and the Inquiry Officer also under a mandate to complete the proceedings within a time span issued the notice scheduling a hearing on 26.08.2020. It is only at that stage that the Inquiry Officer was made aware of the order passed by the High Court and immediately in response thereto, the proceedings were adjourned.
The information regarding adjournment of the proceedings was communicated to the petitioner and it would be relevant to add that the instant contempt petition came to be filed only on 26.09.2020 when the proceedings had been already stayed and there was no cause subsisting for contempt.
It is thus urged that there is no deliberate violation of the order passed by the Court and in any case on the date of institution of the contempt petition, there was no hearing scheduled and thus any lapse if any cannot be construed as deliberate and willful especially since there was lock down on account of COVID-19 pandemic and the situation had just started to normalize in August, 2020, Accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed and notice be discharged.
The Court has heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the material on record.
The petitioner could not dispute the fact that in his petition there is no averments regarding the date on which the orders passed by the writ court were communicated to the respondent. The only document available on record is annexure no.3 which is a letter sent by the counsel for the petitioner addressed to the Inquiry Officer and not to the respondent. From the material on record, it indicates that the said letter annexure no.3 was received by the Inquiry Officer on 25.08.2022 and immediately thereafter the scheduled hearing of 26.08.2020 was adjourned.
From the bare perusal of the photocopy of the postal receipt which has been annexed by the petitioner as part of annexure no.3 indicates that it was posted and dispatched through post on 17.08.2020. In this backdrop, it appears that the notice as annexure no.3 dispatched on 17.08.2020 was received by the Inquiry Officer on 25.08.2020 and thereafter the scheduled hearing of 26.08.2020 was adjourned. There is nothing on record to indicate that the orders passed by the writ court were communicated either to the Inquiry Officer or respondent prior to 10.08.2020 which as per the petitioner is the date of the letter scheduling a hearing on 26.08.2020.
Even otherwise, assuming that the order as passed by the writ court was communicated to the respondent but there is nothing on record to indicate that the letter dated 10.08.2020 was issued at the behest of the respondent inspite of the knowledge of the order passed by the writ court and then too the respondent directed the issuance of the said letter.
In this content it will be gainful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Tarun Bajaj and others (2014) 16 SCC 204 wherein the Apex Court considering the powers of the contempt court and the manner in which it should be exercised has been mentioned in para 11 and 12 which reads as under:-
"11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide V. G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta [V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta, (1992) 4 SCC 697 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 202 : (1993) 23 ATC 400] ,Chhotu Ramv.Urvashi Gulati [Chhotu Ramv.Urvashi Gulati, (2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1196] ,Anil Ratan Sarkarv.Hirak Ghosh[Anil Ratan Sarkarv.Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21] ,Bank of Barodav.Sadruddin Hasan Daya[Bank of Barodav.Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360] ,Sahdeov.State of U.P.[Sahdeov.State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 451] andNational Fertilizers Ltd.v.Tuncay Alankus
12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ?wilful?. The word ?wilful? introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. ?Wilful? means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a ?bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely?. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. ?Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.? (VideS. Sundaram Pillaiv.V.R. Pattabiraman[S. Sundaram Pillaiv.V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] ,Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Raov.Naragani Govinda Sehararao[Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Raov.Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255 : AIR 1989 SC 2185] ,Niaz Mohammadv.State of Haryana[Niaz Mohammadv.State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332 : AIR 1995 SC 308] ,Chordia Automobilesv.S. Moosa[Chordia Automobilesv.S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282] ,Ashok Paper Kamgar Unionv.Dharam Godha[Ashok Paper Kamgar Unionv.Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1] ,State of Orissav.Mohd. Illiyas[State of Orissav.Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122 : AIR 2006 SC 258] andUniworth Textiles Ltd.v.CCE"
The dictum of Tarun Bajaj (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court in Workmen through the Convener FCI Labour Federation Vs. Ravuthar Dawood Naseem reported in 2020 SCC ONLine SC 461 and it held as under:-"
Suffice it to observe that to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom."
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, it could not be disputed that even after the issuance of letter dated 10.08.2020 once the orders were communicated to the Inquiry Officer, the said hearing of 26.08.2020 was adjourned. Apparently, there does not appear to be any element of deliberate or willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court.
Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that no contempt is made out. The petition is dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022 ank