Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty vs Shri K.R. Sharma on 20 August, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi CP 156/2013 in OA No. 2762/2012 Reserved on: 20.11.2014 Pronounced on: 20.08.2015 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A) Tushar Ranjan Mohanty S/o Shri Rabi Narayan Mohanty SAG Officer of the Indian Statistical Service Deputy Director General, Research and Publication Unit, Coordination and Publication Division, Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Room No.6,Wing No.6, Ground Floor, West Block No.8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Petitioner (Applicant in person) Versus Shri K.R. Sharma, Under Secretary, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001. Contemnor (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) O R D E R By Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A):
The instant Contempt Petition has been filed against the contemnor for using intemperate and insensitive language while submitting the counter reply in OA No.2762/2012 and attaching motives to the Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi.
2. The petitioner has stated that in the Crl. M.C. No.3021/2010 order had been dictated by the Honble High Court of Delhi on 22.02.2011 in open court. The petitioner further submits that the learned counsel for the contemnor (respondent in that case) was present in the court and if something had been recorded not conforming to the proceedings, it was for the counsel to request the court for modification in the same. Instead, the contemnor in his counter affidavit in para 19 at page 13 of the counter reply in the OA stated as under:-
19. Since these two cases were listed in the same bench one after another on 29th October, 2010 and in Crl.MA No.15416/2010 along with Crl. MC No.3021/2010, although UOI is not a party, the Honble High Court attributing to counsel of UOI directed presence of Sh. V.R. Hegde, Joint Director and complainant in FIR No.72/2008. These two cases were listed for hearing on 14th January, 2012. Again these two cases were heard together in the Honble High Court of Delhi on 22nd February, 2011. With regard to the CM No.5379/2009 in WP(C) No.4346/2007 Const. Cas.(C) No.615/2009 and CM No.10028/2010, the Honble Bench had ordered as under:
.
3. The petitioner submits that the contemnor has further stated at page 20 of the counter reply:-
4. That further the respondent/contemnor in paragraph 31 at page 20 of the counter reply has stated as follows:-
23, Attributing statement to the counsel for UOI, Honble Bench vide its order stated that two petitions filed against the applicant in High Court of Delhi will be withdrawn. The two Writ Petitioners WP (C) 562/2011 (challenging order of Honble CAT PB, New Delhi order dated 21st January, 2010 in OA No. 2345/2009 regarding major penalty) and WP(C) 1095 of 2011 (challenging the order of Honble CAT, PB, New Delhi order dated 13th January, 2010 in OA 2262 of 2009 regarding minor penalty) against the applicant were filed in the Honble High Court of Delhi and these two cases were independent of the Criminal MA and it were not concerned. In fact issues related to the two writ petitions challenging the orders of Honble CAT, PB, New Delhi in the two OAs both of Janary, 2010, did not exist on the date of settlement as per the order of Honble High Court of Delhi dated 21.11.2008. Accordingly, it was neither intended nor the Govt. counsel was briefed about the intention of UOI to withdraw the two WPs.
4. The petitioner has objection to the use of word attribute and has accused the contemnor of impliedly stating that the Honble Judges of the High Court have been telling lies. Going into the dictionary meaning and the synonymous of the word attribute, the petitioner states that it would include assigning, accrediting, attaching, giving credit to and laying at somebodys door. It is the case of the petitioner that knowing the statement to be false, the respondent Ministry in the OA used the same i.e. the Honble High Court attributing to counsel of UOI directed presence of Sh. V.R. Hegde, Joint Director and complainant in FIR No. 72/2008.
5. The petitioner has also attached draft charges to the contempt petition and prayed for the following relief(s):-
(i) to allow the present contempt petition;
(ii) to issue rule nisi;
(iii) to punish the respondent/contemnor who by virtue of their acts of omission and commission, has not only deliberately and willfully used intemperate and insensitive language against the Honble High Court of Delhi and also used false information in the counter reply filed in the OA, but have also attempted to lower the authority of this Honble Court, thereby committing contempt of court;
(iv) to issue any such and further order/direction this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; and
(v) to allow exemplary costs of this petition throughout.
6. A reply has been filed on behalf of the contemnor stating that the petitioner has not been able to show as to which direction of the Tribunal had been willfully or deliberately violated or as to how there has been any obstruction in the administration of justice. Reply has been filed in the concerned OA after being vetted at various levels in the office of the respondents and there had been no intention on part of the respondent to show any disrespect to any of the courts including the Honble High Court of Delhi. It has been further submitted that for the same allegation the applicant filed MA no. 457/2013 praying for similar relief as also another MA No.561/2013 with same allegation and praying for similar relief. The respondents submitted that the applicant has also filed MA No.458/2013 again with similar allegation and praying for similar relief. The reply on behalf of the contemnor and other respondents in the OA submits that they have highest regard for directions/orders/judgments of the Honble High Court. They further submit that they even in their wildest imagination cannot dream of ignoring any directions of courts or showing disrespect to their orders. It has also been submitted that the contemnor has been relieved of his charge as Under Secretary (Admn,) w.e.f. 08.03.2013 and is no longer privy to the information/records of the case from that date. He had been discharging his duties while on this post as call off duty and he has nothing personal against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder rebutting the averments in the counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner had been compelled to approach the court vide OA No. 3762/2012 when his legitimate claims of LTC were not paid by the respondent department. The conduct of the respondents speaks louder than words and has, therefore, reiterated his stand for summoning the contemnor in person.
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings in the instant CP, OA as also in respect of three MAs mentioned above filed in the OA. We have also patiently heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and the learned counsel for the contemnor and respondents in the OA. It needs to be stated that the issue with which we are confronted is as to whether any contempt of court has been committed by the contemnor in the instant CP and by the respondents in OA No. 2762/2012.
9. The genesis of the issue relates to OA No. 2762/2012 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.04.2014, relevant paras whereof are extracted hereunder:-
25. Here, we also take note of the fact that it is a well settled and accepted principle of law that if a thing is prescribed to be done in a particular way it can only be done in that particular way and none other. This time honoured principle has been propitiated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (AIR 1936 P.C. 253). This view has further been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey versus State of Madhya Pradesh [2004(2)SCC 56] and in the case of Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka [WP (Crl.) No. 154/2013 with WP (Crl.) No.166/2013 decided on 30th September, 2013], relevant portion whereof is extracted hereunder:-
There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 358, this court held as under:
8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.
(See also: Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.K. Dubey & Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 578).
26. No doubt, we are impressed by the indefatigable capacity of the applicant to litigate but, as per the LTC Rules, 1988, we cannot allow the situation of the LTC to become one of walk in and walk out. As stated earlier, LTC Rules, 1988 are designed to regulate the availing of this concession to the employees at large. Compromising these rules to the extent desired by the applicant would render them ineffete for this body of employees. It is also an admitted fact that MA Nos. 457/2013, 458/2013 and 516/2013 were also filed in that OA. However, due to inadvertence, no order could be passed in respect of the aforesaid three MAs. Hence, the matter was re-agitated by the petitioner while the contempt petition under consideration was being argued. Therefore, all the aforesaid MAs are being disposed of with this contempt petition.
10. For the sake of convenience, we quote the main prayers in the OA as well as in the MAs in the following manner:-
OA No.2762/2012 MA No.457/2013 MA No.458/2013 MA No.516/20138.1 to allow the present Original Application;
8.2 to quash and set aside the impugned Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure : A-1) as illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, fanciful and violative of the extant rules and law;
8.3 to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,360/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand three hundred and sixty only) to the applicant towards the claims of Leave Travel Concession preferred by the Applicant [Annexure A-3 (Colly)];
8.4 to direct the respondent to pay compound interest @ 18% per annum, compounded monthly with effect from 21.02.2011, the date on which the Leave Travel Concession Bill [Annexure A-3 (Colly)] was preferred by the applicant, till payment of the claim amount by the respondent Ministry;
8.5 to issue any such and further orders/directions this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and 8.6 to allow exemplary costs of the application.
(i) allow the present Miscellaneous Application;
(ii) Pass appropriate strictures against the respondent herein for using such intemperate and derogatory language in the reply.
(iii) direct the respondents not to use such language in future.
(iv) issue any such and further order/ direction this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; and
(v) Award exemplary cost against the respondent.
(i) allow the present Miscellaneous Application.
(ii) to pass appropriate orders of reference etc. to the competent Criminal Court in respect of the offences committed by the respondent herein during the judicial proceeding in OA No. 2762 of 2012 under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law relevant to the purpose at hand;
(iii) issue any such and further order/direction this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; and
(iv) award exemplary cost against the respondent.
(i) allow the present Miscellaneous Application.
(ii) pass appropriate strictures against the respondent herein for using such intemperate and derogatory language in the reply, that too against the Honble Bench of Honble High Court of Delhi;
(iii) refer the matter to the Honble High Court of Delhi for initiation of contempt proceedings before the appropriate Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi against the respondent herein for having lowered the authority of the Honble High Court of Delhi and showing gross disrespect to the Honble High Court of Delhi.
(iv) issue any such order and further order/direction this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(v) award exemplary cost against the respondents.
11. Before we take up the issue, we have to go into what contempt means and signifies. The term contempt has been defined as the contempt is a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority [Bouvier L. Dict.]. The term contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
12. Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise) of any matter of the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
Contempt, in the legal acceptation of the term, primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard. The Honble Supreme Court in B. Mishra v. B. Dixit [AIR 1972 (SC) 2466, 2468] has held as under:-
Contempt of court is disobedience to the court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a willful disregard or disobedience of the Courts order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of the law into disrepute. The Honble Supreme Court in Alarakha Hasan Hamirkha v. Keshavlal Dhaneshwar Dwivedi [AIR 1956 (Sau) 102, 103] held as under:-
The law on the subject of contempt of court is to be found in Halsburys laws of England, 2nd Edi. Volume 7 [para 8] and it says that contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalizing the court itself or by abusing parties to actions or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. As defined under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there have been many classifications of contempt of courts, some of which are as follows:-
(i) A direct contempt is an open insult in the presence of the court to the person of the presiding Judge or defiance in his presence to his powers or authority;
(ii) A Constructive contempt is an act done not in the presence of the court, but at a distance which tends to be little, to degrade, or to obstruct, interrupt, prevent or embarrass the administration of justice;
(iii) A Criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court. Acts punishable as criminal contempts are in the nature of crimes, in that they involve the idea of punishment as a penalty for the commission of unauthorized act;
(iv) Civil contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of opposing party therein.
13. The Contempt of Courts also provides exceptions where the acts alleged would not constitute contempt; some of which are listed below:-
(i) Under Section 3 of the Act a person charged with contempt shall not be held guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
(ii) Under Section 4 of the Act a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof.
(iii) Under Section 5, A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.
(iv) Under Section 6, A person shall not be guilty of contempts of court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate court to---
(a) Any other subordinate court, or
(b) The High Court, To which it is subordinate.
(v) Under Section 7, where the proceedings are being held before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except under certain circumstances relating to secret proceedings or connected with public order or where publication has been prohibited or contrary to the provisions of the enactment. The Honble High Court has powers under Section 10 of the Act to punish the contempt of the subordinate court.
(vi) Under Section 12 of the Act, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
(vii) Under Section 13, satisfaction of the court has been made the primary element in awarding punishment and it has the powers to invoke any defence in public interest, which is bonafide.
14. Having considered the scope of law as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, we now advert to the facts of the case in hand. The very basis of this contempt petition is that the applicant alleges that the use of word attribute would tantamount to accusing the Honble High Court of telling lies. We have also seen, as stated by the petitioner himself, that the word attribute has several dictionary meanings, some of which have already been cited above. We definitely agree to the suggestion that when an order is being dictated in the open court, it is for the advocates to plead for correction, if any required, in the court itself during the process. However, the moot issue here is that when the word attribute has many dictionary meanings what is there to come to the conclusion that it necessarily implies an insult to the court of willful disobedience of its orders or in any way leads to lowering or diminishing its dignity in public eye.
15. This controversy of contempt has been the subject matter of various litigations before the Honble Supreme Court. In Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala [2004 (6)SCC 311] wherein the Bar Council had claimed that court proceeding could also be regulated by the Bar Council in exercise of its powers and that it was not for the court to punish an advocate for professional conduct while discharging his professional duties..
9. Law of contempt both as regard its interpretation and application had posed complex questions before the Court. 'No branch of law possibly has been more misconstrued or misutilized within the contempt jurisdiction'; observed Lord Denning. The contempt jurisdiction originates from the Ecclesiastical Courts which goes back to the middle ages while ethics and law were treated to be at par.
10. Inherent power of the Court to punish a person for committing contempt of the Court is universally recognised. The law of contempt is governed by the Statutes including Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or other statutory laws relating thereto as, for example, Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure but the powers of the superior Courts are engrafted in the Constitution by reason of Articles 129 and 215 thereof providing that the Supreme Court and the High Court being a Court of Records shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Apart from constitutional and statutory provisions, the inherent power of the Court in that behalf is recognised. (See R. I. Kapur v. State of Madras, (1972) 1 SCC 651.
14. In Shamdasani's case (supra) Lord Goddard, C.J., suggested other ways in which an advocate could commit contempt. He said :
"If in the course of a case a person persists in a line of conduct or use of language in spite of a ruling of the presiding Judge he may very properly be adjudged guilty of contempt of Court, but then the offence is the disregard of the ruling and setting the Court at defiance. So, also, if a litigant or advocate threatened or attempted violence on his opponent, or conceivably if he used language so outrageous and provocative as to be likely to lead to a brawl in Court, the offence could be said to have been committed."
15. In The Law of Contempt' by Borrie and Lowe, at page 22, it is stated :
"Any advocate is likely to be punished for contempt if he personally insults the Court and, as we have seen, insulting the Court includes not only insults made to the Judge, but also insults made to a jury. However, as has been stated already, a distinction must be made between addressing the Court and addressing opposing counsel or litigant, for, as Lord Goddard, C.J.. said in Parshuram Detaram Shamdasani v. R. :
"It must be rare indeed for words used in the course of argument, however irrelevant, to amount to a contempt when they relate to an opponent, whether counsel or litigant."
Just as an advocate will not be justified in using abusive language neither will he be able to use blasphemous language. Thus in R. v. Davison a litigant conducting his own case repeatedly used blasphemous language and for this conduct he was held guilty of contempt, even after allowances had been made for the fact that he was a layman. As Bayley, J. said :
"The question is shortly this, whether for the future, decency and decorum shall or shall not be preserved in Courts of Justice; or whether, under colour of defending himself against any particular charge, a defendant is at liberty to introduce new, mischievous, and irrelevant matter upon the trial. I agree that a defendant, in all cases, should have every facility allowed him in his address to the jury, provided he confines himself within those rules which decency and decorum require. In every case, the subject of the discussion before the jury is to be considered, and a Judge is bound to see that the arguments which are adduced, are such as are consistent with decency and decorum, and not foreign to the matter on which the jury have to decide."
20. Our view is only illustrative in nature to show that the Courts ordinarily exercise its power of contempt with due care and caution and not mechanically and whimsically. The power of contempt is not exercised only because it is lawful to do so but when it becomes imperative to uphold the rule of law.
16. In yet another decision in O.P. Sharma & Ors. Versus High Court of Punjab & Haryana [2011 (6) SCC 86], the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the ratio accused shall be discharged or punishment awarded shall be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. This, however, does not imply that a mere apology will not suffice unless it were to be to the satisfaction of the court.
17. On the basis of the afore discussion, we may examine as to what are the essential ingredients that constitute an offence, as under:-
(i) There must be some direction of the court in the form of judgment, decree, order, writ or other process;
(ii) There must be some act of disobedience of wilful undertaking given in the court;
(iii) Such act must scandalize or tend to scandalize to lower the dignity or authority of the court or interfere with the process of the court or obstructs the administration of justice or in any other manner.
18. We have already noted the arguments of the rival parties. The contemnor has already pleaded that the issue was vetted at various places in the respondent Ministry and even by the legal Section and only thereafter the counter affidavit had been filed. There had been no intention even in his dreams to lower down the dignity of the court. The contemnor has also tendered unconditional apology.
19. One of the essential ingredients, which we have noted, is that the act done must be wilful by telling the court that we are aware of the order of the court but we do not care for it and we are going to do this irrespective of the order. There is no such intention. Moreover, in view of the judgment in Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala (supra) and unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor already the issue stands settled.
20. Coming to the issue of intemperate language as averred in the three MAs filed by the petitioner, we find the petitioner has given extensive quotations. MA No.561/2013 refers to the same as has been filed in the instant contempt petition. In MA No.458/2013, the petitioner in para 16 has stated as under:-
That the respondent/deponent in paragraph 40 at page 25 of the counter reply has stated as follows:-
40. The matter, however, did not end there, as the applicant after gap of more than two years agan raised the matter by way of OA No.2829 of 2012 and OA No.2830 of 2012 before the Honble CAT, PB, New Delhi requesting for action against two of the officers related with the matter. Honble CAT, PB vide its order dated 7th September, 2012 in the OA No.2829/2012 and 2830/2012 directed this respondent Ministry to dispose of the representation of the applicant. In compliance with the direction of the Honble CAT, PB, necessary order has been passed in the case. Thus it may be seen that the applicant is in habit of raising the settled issue again and again and in spite of the fact that the matter has been treated as closed, as requested by him in the OA No.2393 of 2009 (as referred in para 37 above), is continuously raising the matter. Likewise, in MA No.457/2013, the petitioner has taken objection, which reads as under:-
27. The applicant is in habit of litigating the service related matter at the slightest pretext....
21. The respondents in all the MAs have filed their counter affidavit re-affirming their highest regard for the courts and tendering unconditional apology. Here, we act on the maxim of equity begets equity.
22. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed more than 200 cases including OAs against the respondent department. In these he has traded in the language used by the respondents with equal, if not greater vehemence, in these proceedings. For instance, in para 4.12 of the OA, he has noted as under:-
4.12 That on the face of several adverse judgments, the respondent ministry and its corrupt officers were faced with the inevitable and that was to promote the applicant to the Senior Administrative Grade of the Indian Statistical Service on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 02.11.2006. Therefore, in order to stop the promotion of the applicant, a false criminal case was foisted by the respondent Ministry against the applicant and also three officers of the Indian Statistical Service filed a false complaint of abuse against the applicant. ON the basis of such false statements, too eagerly believed by the respondent Ministry, the applicant was illegally placed under suspension on 03.03.2008. A copy of the order of suspension dated 03.03.2008 is enclosed hereto as the first document of Annexure A-2 (Colly.)
23. A number of these cases have been coming before us and 52 of them continuing to be alive on the cause list since the last head count was taken. We have become accustomed to this kind of use of language on part of the applicant. In another OA where the applicant alleged that appointment of respondent no.2 had been quashed by this Tribunal on the basis of his arguments but subsequently the aforesaid had been quashed and set aside by the Honble High Court. However, we still find that the applicant has re-asserted his own case. He insisted on reading out before the court a letter dated 15.09.2014 addressed to the respondent no.2. We find it proper to extract one of the paragraphs of the said letter as under:-
I am writing this letter to you with a heavy heart to put on record the sustained malafide action that you have been engineering and leading against me as you are in a position of power to misuse your official position to harass me. I have always called a spade a spade before the spade and, therefore, I am bringing the infractions of the Rules, Regulations and Procedures on record. I always believed that I was a good judge of human beings, but unfortunately in your case, may be for the first time in my life, I have failed myself. Your outer personality in acting like an affable Professor and your real personality where you can easily manipulate everything and everybody to get things done the way you want them are in stark contrast and unfortunately I am at the receiving end of the same. It was only after more than three years after knowing you could I put two and two together and realise your true colours.
xxx xxx xxx
11. As a matter of fact, till February, 2013 you had an unhindered right of way in helping, supporting and protecting such corrupt offices like Shri Ajay Kumar Mehra, Director General and Chief Executive Officer, National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi, when Shri Arvind Kumar was the Joint Secretary and Shri T.S. Jawahar was the Chief Vigilance Officer. However, the situation changed when both Shri Arvind Kumar and Shri T.S. Jawahar left the Ministry. With Shri S.S. Badhawan in position as Joint Secretary and with a new Chief Vigilance Officer, your leeway to allow the corrupt to proper in the Ministry shrunk and after Shri Dinesh Singh, a very upright and honest officer joined the Ministry as Additional Secretary, some punitive action also started against these corrupt officers.
24. We must abide by the maxim that equity begets equity. It would have been very much on the cards to pursue the matter further had the applicant himself been a picture of moderation and temperate behaviour. The above language used indicates that he is far from it. The Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Singh versus High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior [2007 (14) SCC 126] held as under:-
To constitute the offence of Contempt of Court, there must be involved some act calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority or something calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice on the lawful process of the Court.
25. In conclusion, we find nothing on record that meets any of the ingredients of contempt. Rather, we find the behaviour of the applicant very much quixotic. We do not approve this behaviour of the applicant as it is at the expense of the court and amount to misuse the process of law.
26. In consideration of the above facts, the instant CP and the three MAs bearing MA No. 4578/2013, 458/2013 and 516/2013 are dismissed without there being any order as to costs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/