Delhi High Court
S K Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 March, 2014
Author: Veena Birbal
Bench: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: March 21, 2014
+ W.P.(CRL) 552/2014 & CRL.M.A. No.4413/2014
S K SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Roy Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. H.P. Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel with Ms. Saakshi
Agrawal, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C wherein prayer is made for quashing the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the ld.Attorney General for India declining to grant consent under section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the three alleged contemnors, namely, Sh.B.K.Jha, Smt.Sumana Sen and Ms.Ashima Neb.
2. Petitioner is an IRS officer of 1987 Batch. Petitioner has alleged that on 14.7.2011, he was wrongly transferred to Ranchi. Accordingly, he had filed OA no.2600/2011 titled S.K.Srivastava vs. WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 1 of 6 UOI and ors on 20.11.2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal‟) challenging his transfer from Delhi to Ranchi wherein Sh.B.K.Jha, Smt.Sumana Sen and Ms.Ashima Neb, I.R.S. Officers have also been arrayed as respondents. Petitioner has made allegations of gross malafide against the aforesaid respondents. It is stated that the Tribunal has stayed the transfer of the petitioner and notice has been issued to the respondents and the matter is pending disposal before the Tribunal.
3. The petitioner has alleged that on 20.10.2011, Shri B.K.Jha who was deputed by UOI to handle the aforesaid case on its behalf offered a bribe of Rs.1 lakh and sexual favours by the aforesaid two lady officers to his Advocate Sh.S.K.Gupta in order to loose the case of the petitioner in favour of the aforesaid three officers. On 21.10.2011, petitioner sought consent of the Attorney General for India under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating criminal contempt against aforesaid three officers. It is alleged that on 24.10.2011 matter was also reported to the Tribunal by filing criminal contempt petition wherein the Tribunal directed Sh.S.K.Gupta, Advocate to file an affidavit alleging the events. On 1.11.2011, the Tribunal issued notice and the case is at the stage of framing of charge. It is stated that on 11th February, 2014, Sh. B.K.Jha, the alleged contemnor has produced the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Attorney General for India by which request of the petitioner to accord the consent under section 15 of the Act has been declined.
WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 2 of 64. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not given any personal hearing in the matter by the ld.Attorney General. It is further submitted that there was enough material on record on the basis of which the consent, as prayed by the petitioner, ought to have been granted to him.
5. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for UOI who was present on an advance notice.
6. The impugned order passed by the ld.Attorney General is as under:-
"1.Having gone through the entire record supplied by you carefully, I regret to inform you that for the reasons mentioned herein, I DECLINE to grant consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the three alleged contemnors- (i) Shri B.K.Jha, (ii) Smt.Sumana Sen and (iii) Ms.Ashima Neb.
2.The principal allegation on the basis of which criminal contempt proceedings are sought to be initiated is that on 20 th October, 2011, Shri B.K.Jha approached your counsel Shri S.K.Gupta at around 11 a.m. at the exit gate of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and offered him (i) sexual favours from alleged contemnor nos.2 and 3 and (iii) an unspecified amount of money. As per the allegations, this offer was made in order to persuade Shri S.K.Gupta to lose your case (O.A. No.2600 of 2011 pending before CAT).
3.However, the complaint filed by Shri S.K.Gupta before the President, CAT Bar Association regarding the incident of 20.10.2011 does not make any allegation to this effect. In any case, the incident of 20.10.2011 has now been referred to the police for investigation.WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 3 of 6
4.I also note that the alleged contemnors no.2 and 3 had filed Writ Petition (Civil0 No.1373 of 2011 (Shumana Sen and Another v.Union of India and Others) before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court praying for directions to the competent authorities for properly conducting the inquiry against you on allegations of sexual harassment. In this petition, an order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 1st March 2011 restraining you from distributing any similar communications within your organization. As noticed by the Hon‟ble High Court in its order dated 4.7.2011, you have nevertheless circulated a letter dated 6.5.2011 containing similar allegations, which led to Ms.Shumana Sen filing Contempt Case (C) No.360 of 2011 against you. In the order dated 4.7.2011, the Hon‟ble High Court was of the opinion that you were prima facie in contempt of the order dated 1.3.2011.
5.The letter dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure C-2) attached to your draft contempt petition states that in Contempt Case(C) No.360 of 2011, the Delhi High Court has reprimanded you and that you withdrew all your allegations against alleged contemnors no.2 and 3 and tendered an unconditional apology for the same.
6. I have also noted from your covering letter as well as from the draft petition that you have made allegations against a Central Minister, without naming him. Such allegations are not only unsubstantiated but entirely uncalled for and not germane to your application. This leads to serious doubts about bona fide of your application.
7.Having carefully considered the entire matter, I do not think that a prima facie case for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings is made out."
7. It may be mentioned that impugned order is dated 31st October, 2011 and the present petition has been filed on 10 th March, 2014. There is a delay of two and half years in filing the present petition. The delay has not been explained in the petition. The impugned order WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 4 of 6 shows that it has been addressed to the petitioner. It is not stated that the said order has not been served upon him. Further, no material has been placed on record that petitioner ever made enquiries from the office of Ld. Attorney General about disposal of his application dated 21.10.2011 for requesting the grant of „consent‟. Perusal of the impugned order shows that same was addressed to the petitioner at his residential address. Further the alleged contemnors i.e., Sh.B.K.Jha, Smt.Sumana Sen and Ms.Ashima Neb have also not been made party(ies) to the petition. If the impugned order is set aside, it will have serious consequences on the alleged contemnors.
8. Further the documents which have been mentioned in the impugned order and have been filed by the petitioner before the ld.Attorney General along with the application dated 21.10.2011 for the grant of consent, have also not been annexed with this petition. It has been categorically observed in the impugned order that the Advocate for the petitioner who had immediately after the alleged incident had reported the matter to the CAT Bar Association on 20.10.2011 wherein the allegations on the basis of which petitioner is seeking criminal contempt against the alleged contemnors has not been mentioned. Even the said letter is not annexed with the petition.
9. The impugned order shows that the entire material has been considered and thereafter ld.Attorney General has come to the conclusion that prima facie case for initiation of criminal contempt against alleged contemnors is not made out.
10. As regards personal hearing, it may be mentioned that no such request was made by the petitioner in the letter of request dated WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 5 of 6 21.10.2011 to the ld.Attorney General. In any event, the personal hearing, as is contended, is not required to be given.
11. The impugned order dated 31.10.2011 is a speaking order wherein cogent reasons are given for rejecting the application of petitioner for the grant of requisite consent for initiation of criminal contempt against the alleged contemnors.
In view of the above discussion, writ petition is dismissed.
VEENA BIRBAL, J MARCH 21, 2014 ssb WP(Crl.) 552/2014 Page 6 of 6