Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Shanker Bhandari vs Secretary, Public Health And Family ... on 1 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994CRILJ3518
JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, J.
1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of this Court's order dated 12-4-1988 passed in M.P. No. 2159/86. The respondents have been noticed and have also personally appeared in this Court on 28-1-1994. The respondent No. 3 has filed the reply to the application on 18-1-1994 and additional reply on 28-1-1994.
2. It appears that the petitioner Hari Shanker Bhandari was employed as a Radiographer under the administrative control of respondent No. 3 at Tikamgarh and retired from service on 30-8-1980. According to him, he was entitled to pension and other retiral benefits which were denied to him for long. According to him, his provisional pension was only fixed but neither the final pension was determined nor other benefits given. He, therefore, approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which was subject-matter of M.P. No. 2159/86.. The said petition was decided by this Court by its order dated 12-4-1988, the operative part of which reads as under :-
We, therefore, allow this petition and direct that the petitioner's pension case shall now be finalised within three months from today and all dues on account of his pension shall be, paid to him within one month therefrom. We further direct that the Govt. shall also pay interest at 12% on the amount so due to the petitioner on account of his pensionary benefits.; [The respondents shall also, pay costs of Rs. l00 - of this petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after the aforesaid order of this Court, he obtained a copy thereof and filed the same for consideration of the respondent No. 3 on 16-5-1988 as per Annexure P-2. The complaint is that even though this order was brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3, he ignored the same. The petitioner further submits that thereafter he approached the respondent No. 2 on 27-9-1988 by sending him representation Annexure P3, and after failure to receive any relief, he also approached the respondent No. 1 by sending representation Annexure P4. The grievance of the petitioner further is that he had also approach the Accountant General who by his letter Annexure P5 informed him that the respondent No. 3 is the proper authority to take action in the matter and therefore the petitioner should approach him. In this process, more than three years have passed but nothing whatsoever was done to honour the order passed by this Court. This, according to the petitioner, amounts to wilful disobedience to the order and hence contempt of Court, for which the respondents deserve to be punished.
4. Proceedings of this Court indicate that the notice was sent to the respondents on 23-4-1991 and 24-7-91 but no one appeared for the respondents. No one also took any action in the matter in spite of service of notice. The matter therefore was listed for final hearing before this Court on 3-12-1993. On that date also no one appeared for the respondents. This Court therefore invited the attention of the Government Advocate present in the Court, to the attitude of the respondehtsin a contempt matter and directed that the respondent No. 3 will personally remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing. The case was again listed on 20-1-1994 for final hearing when respondent No. 3 Dr. K.L. Sahu appeared in person and also filed reply. Dr. Sahu also made an oral statement in the Court that it was the Treasury which has to make payment and therefore he was helpless in the matter. Since the aforesaid statement of Dr. Sahu did not provide any justification for contempt, this Court had directed that all the contemners should remain present in the Court for hearting. That is how all the three respondents-comtemners were present in the Court on 28-1-1994. The learned Addl. Advocate General stated at the Bar that the Secretary of the Department has assumed the charge on transferonly about a month before and the respondent No. 2, the Director, 2 days before and were therefore, not aware of the order of the Court or disobedience thereof. No written reply on their behalf of has been filed. The respondent No. 3 had first filed his reply on 18-1-1994 stating that the final pension of the petitioner was fixed on 1-11-1989 and was being paid to him. The reply further mentions that the had joined at Tikamgarh on 15-1-1993 but before his joining, a letter dated 16-5-1991 (Annexure R1) had been sent to the respondent No. 2 to the effect that the pension case of the petitioner remains finally decided and was therefore, closed. It was therefore, submitted that there was no disobedience of this Court's orderw. Para 7 of the said reply, however, mentions that "If this Hon'ble Court holds that there is any case of contempt, the answering respondent submit unconditional apology and most humbly requests that the same be accepted." Not satisfied with the aforesaid reply, the respondent No. 3 submitted additional reply on 28-1-1994 and stated that sum of Rs. 31,124.20 p. being arrears on account of pension from Sept. 1980 to Oct. 1989 was paid to the petitioner on 21-1-1994 by a treasury cheque which was received by him. It was further submitted that two cheques for Rupees 20,208.00 and Rs. 2681.00 representing the interest on pension and gratuity were also sent to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same on the ground that his seniority case has not been decided. It is further submitted that there was no direction of this Court about his seniority, the refusal of the petitioner was sufficient to drop these proceedings. Learned Addl. Advocate General however franklv conceded at the Bar that he had no justification to say for the delay in implementing the clear order of this Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General further admitted that the petitioner was entitled to interest from the date of his retirement which has not been paid and assured this Court that the same would be done.
5. Having heard the, learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a case of contempt of a serious nature. The facts stated above would indicate that though the petitioner had retired as early as on 30-8-1980 and had become entitled to pension and other benefits, he was denied the same for about 14 long years. This Court passed the order on 12-4-1988 i.e. after about 8 years of his retirement and gave three months time to the respondent to finalize the pension case. No one seems to have even taken note of the said order. The pension case was finalized on 1-11-1989 i.e. about a year and a half after this Court's direction and that too partial, inasmuch, as, though the pension was paid from 1-11-1989, arrears were not paid. This Court is inclined to believe that but for order of personal appearance of the respondents in this Court, nothing would have been paid by the respondents. Obviously therefore, it is a case where the respondents have taken action only after this Court expressed its annoyance and recorded that this Court prima facie finds that it was a case of contempt of Court. Clearly, therefore, this is a case where the respondents have shown little regard to the Court and have persistently refused to obey its order even though they were bound by the same, unless they were summoned after regarding a prima facie finding. This, in the opinion of this Court, is a clear case of contempt. The manner in which the order of this Court remained ignored is likely to create an impression in the mind of the general public that the process of this Court has lost its competency and is unable to help poor litigants. Since this is a clear case of wilful disobedience, this Court likes to remind itself by sentiments of Supreme Court in Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Sri Heromoni Mondal, , which are expressed as under:-
...we should like to put out a warning that where a case of wilful disobedience is made out, the Courts will not hesitate and will convict the delinquent officer and that no leniency in the Court's attitude should be expected from the Court as a matter of course merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer.
(Para 9) In cases where contempt has the effect of lowering the judicial authority, the Supreme Court has treated the same as criminal contempt and directed that "serious cognizance of such conduct must be taken by court". These decisions would sufficiently indicate the Court's recent attitude in the matter. The Courts would zealously guard its reputation and efficacy and punish those who intentionally try to interfere or disturb it. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the respondents are guilty of contempt of this Court, consisting of disobedience of this Court's order as aforesaid.
6. As regards sentence, though the Supreme Court has cautioned that Courts should not hesitate in sentencing an officer even though the sentence has the effect of spoiling his career, this Court cannot be unnecessarily harsh. The punishment should be commensurate with the offence and sufficient to secure its objective. The statement of the learned Addl. Advocate General about the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that they had joined the office one month and 2 days before, has not been contradicted by that learned counsel for the petitioner. There is therefore, no reason for not accepting the same. It is therefore, reasonable to hold that these respondents did not have the knowledge of this Court's order. We would therefore, give them benefit of aforesaid statement and discharge the rule hoping that they would receive the message of the Court and the Constitution and serve the State upholding its highest judicial traditions of which obedience of this Court's order is an integral part.
7. The aforesaid is however, not true about the respondent No. 3. He, on his own showing, had been at Tikamgarh at least since 15-1-1993. His presence in the Court on 18-1-1994 also indicates that he was aware of the statement contained in the application. The fact contained in Para 4 of his reply based on letter Annexure R1 also indicates that he has no regard to judicial process and is out to some how avoid legal consequences even by making incorrect statement. Based on the aforesaid letter dated 16-5-1993 he has submitted "the petitioner's all dues with interest and cost of the petition has been paid and the petitioner's pension case has been finalised." (Para 4). This, in the opinion of this Court, is a wrong statement and an attempt to misled this Court. Letter dated 16-5-1993 (Annexure R1) on the basis of which this statement is made does not show that the petitioner's case has been finalised. It only indicates that the petitioner's case was not pending in his office. There is no statement in this letter that this Court's order has been obeyed. Then, this Court cannot also ignore this respondent's statement in the Court that the payment was the responsibility of the treasury and, therefore, he was not responsible. These facts do not justify taking any lenient view of the matter. As a necessary consequence, it is also obvious that apology tendered by him does not deserve to be accepted. It is only intended to avoid the consequence and not a real repentence on his part. We would, therefore, reject the apology and sentence him to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only) and in default of fine, a simple imprisonment of one month. The respondent No. 3 is directed to appear before the C.J.M. Tikamgarh on 1-3-1994 to either deposit fine amount or undergo the sentence. C.J.M. Tikamgarh is directed to commit the respondent No. 3 Dr. K.L. Sahu to prison in case of default of depositing the fine, to undergo sentence as aforesaid. The fine amount, if recovered, will be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the inconvenience suffered by him in undertaking these proceedings and the C.J.M. is directed to pay the same to him as aforesaid. The C.J.M. will also report compliance of aforesaid to this Court.