Madras High Court
K. Dhanalakshmi vs Dr. K. Rajendran on 22 December, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
Cont. P.No.388 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 06.12.2021
DELIVERED ON : 09.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
Cont.P.No.388 of 2018
in
W.P. No.40151 of 2016
K. Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
Dr. K. Rajendran
Chairman
KrishnasamyMemorial Polytechnic College
Cuddalore District.
Cuddalore 607 109 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 praying to initiate proceedings against the respondent
for having committed contempt in writing the letter in
ROC.No.78/2016/KMPTC dated 22.12.2016 and punish him
accordingly.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Sathia Chandran
For Respondent : Mr.N. Karthikeyan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Cont. P.No.388 of 2018
ORDER
Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J. The petitioner working in Krishnaswamy Memorial Polytechnic College, Cuddalore, as a lecturer in the Computer Science and Engineering department, had filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.40151 of 2016 before this Court challenging the final order in the departmental action dated 26.10.2016 issued by the respondent/contemnor. The respondent, Dr.K.Rajendran, is the Chairman of the college.
2. The sequence of events leading to the final order as narrated by the petitioner is that, she was appointed as a member of the Counselling Committee for girl students and that some of the girl students of the II year Diploma course in Computer Technology had submitted a joint representation dated 22.08.2016 to the Head of the Department, Computer technology, regarding the misbehaviour by one Mr.K.Balaji, Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department. Two other girl students of the same department (Computer Technology) also gave another representation dated 22.08.2016 to the Principal of the college regarding the incident and offensive comments https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 made by the same Mr.K.Balaji about the petitioner. Based on these two representations, the petitioner was constrained to make a detailed representation to the Principal about the behaviour of Mr. K.Balaji. While Mr.K.Balaji was asked to stay away from the college and also an undertaking letter dated 23.08.2016 was obtained from him, all of a sudden on 21.09.2016, the petitioner was issued a charge memo containing 3 charges. The petitioner was summoned to appear before the Staff Enquiry Committee and without following the due procedure and without furnishing any documents, a final order, dated 26.10.2016, signed by the respondent was issued to the petitioner, the operative portion of which reads as follows:
i. Tmt.K. Dhanalakshmi, Lecturer Department of Computer Technology is hereby directed to remit the penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) to this institution within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the said penalty will be recovered in 5 equal monthly installments from her salary commencing from November 2016;
ii. The annual increment sanctioned to the above person with effect from 01.06.2015 is hereby withdrawn and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 her pay is revised and reduced with effect from 01.11.2016.
iii. The punishments contemplated as above, will come into effect from the date of issue of this order." This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No.40151 of 2016.
3.The Writ Petition was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court and notice was also issued to the respondent. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent sent a memorandum dated 22.12.2016 to the petitioner directing her to go on leave from the forenoon of 22.12.2016 till the disposal of the W.P.No.40151 of 2016. The said memorandum is extracted hereunder for more clarity.
"Tmt. K. Dhanalakshmi, Lecturer, Department of Computer Technology had filed a Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.40151/2016, in the High Court of Judicature, Madras, against the Management.
2. In the interest of the institution, she is advised to go on leave since, she has filed the Writ Petition against the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 Management. Hence, Tmt. K. Dhanalakshmi, Lecturer, Department of Computer Technology, is hereby directed to go on leave from the F.N. of 22.12.2016, till the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P. No.40151/2016."
Hence the present Contempt Petition.
4. In the last virtual hearing on 04.10.2021, the following charge was framed against the respondent.
"That, you, Dr.K.Rajendran, Chairman, Krishnasamy Memorial Polytechnic College, Cuddalore, by sending a letter dated 22.12.2016 to K. Dhanalakshmi, directing her to go on leave till the disposal of W.P.No.40151 of 2016, interfered with the administration of justice and thereby, you are charged for the said act under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which is punishable under Section 12, ibid."
What do you say?"
When the contemnor was questioned, he pleaded not guilty and therefore, four weeks time was granted for filing his affidavit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018
5. In his affidavit dated 28.11.2021, he has stated that the petitioner was advised to go on leave pending the Writ Petition and this was very well within the rights of the institution to maintain staff discipline. It was also contended by him that there was no court order which was violated and the motive attributed by the petitioner is not true and there has never been any threat to the petitioner from the respondent.
6. As per the affidavit of the petitioner, in the Attendance Register, the signature made by her was struck off and leave was marked upto 30.12.2016 and her name and I.D were removed from the biometric data base. On 24.12.2016, the petitioner had addressed a letter that a direction given to her to proceed on leave was clearly an intimidation to pressurize her to withdraw the writ petition. She was also prevented from discharging her duty by the acts of the respondent in marking leave upto 30.12.2016 in the Attendance Register and removing her name and I.D from the biometric data base.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018
7. The definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) is extracted hereunder.
Section 2(c) in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
8. Mr.N. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the contemnor, strongly argued that the definition of Section 2(c) contempt of Courts Act, does not apply to the letter dated 22.12.2016 issued by the contemnor. According to him, the contemnor has in no manner scandalised or interfered or obstructed with the authority of the court or Judicial Proceeding or administration of justice. It was also further contended by him that the present contempt petition is abuse of process https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 of law and it was intended to protect the petitioner from any other serious disciplinary action.
9. On a careful analysis of the facts of the case and the contents of various correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent, it is crystal clear that the respondent/contemnor was irked by the act of the petitioner in proceeding legally against the punishment awarded by the contemnor in his final order dated 26.10.2016. While this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the final order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the contemnor, the contents of the memorandum dated 22.12.2016, that too, immediately after the petitioner challenged the punishment by filing writ petition is highly objectionable. It not only infringes upon the right of the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance but also it tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice.
10. After we reserved orders on 29.11.2021, the respondent filed an apology affidavit dated 30.11.2021 in the Registry on 01.12.2021. When the Registry brought this to our notice, we had the case listed 'for further hearing' on 06.12.2021. When the matter was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 taken up for further hearing on 06.12.2021, we perused the apology affidavit and also furnished a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the apology affidavit, the respondent has stated as follows :
"2. I sincerely and unconditionally apologise for the issuance of the letter dated 22.12.2016. I humbly and bona fide apologise and submit that by issuance of the letter dated 22.12.2016, I had no intention whatsoever to scandalize or tend to scandalize or lower or tend to lower the authority or Majesty of this Hon'ble Court. I humbly sincerely and bona fide apologise and submit that I had/have no intention of prejudicing, or interfering or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding. I humbly sincerely and bona fide apologise and submit that by the issuance of the letter dated 22.12.2016 I had no intention to interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. I humbly sincerely and bona fide apologise for the issuance of the letter dated 22.12.2016 and I unconditionally withdraw the letter dated 22.12.2016 written to the petitioner. I also humbly and bona fide apologise for this belated apology and humbly pray that I may be pardoned and further proceedings dropped and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 discharged from the contempt proceedings. I humbly, sincerely and bona fide undertake not to do act in future which will prejudice or interfere with the majesty of this Hon'ble Court.
3. I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased accept my sincere and bona fide apology and pardon my action and drop further proceedings and discharge me from the contempt and render justice." The respondent is aged about 81 years. We find sincerity and bona fide in the apology that has been tendered by him. Therefore, we accept his apology under the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and discharge him.
In the result, this Contempt Petition is closed.
(P.N.P., J.) (R.H., J.)
09.12.2021
bga
Index : yes/no
Speaking /Non speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/12
Cont. P.No.388 of 2018
To
Dr. K. Rajendran
Chairman
Krishnasamy Memorial Polytechnic College Cuddalore District.
Cuddalore 607 109 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 Cont. P.No.388 of 2018 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga Pre-Delivery order in Cont.P. No.388 of 2018 in W.P. No.40151 of 2016 09.12.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12