Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 477 (HP)

Bhangu Ram v. Savita Sharma & Anr.

2021-07-29

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The genesis of the instant petition is CWP No. 4765/2014, titled as Sita Ram & anr. vs. State of H.P. & ors., which was decided by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 26.5.2015, whereby the order of recovery dated 13.8.2013, that was ordered to be effected against the petitioners therein, was ordered to be quashed and the respondents were further restrained for effecting recovery from the petitioners. 2. This judgment was assailed before the learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 69/2017, titled as State of H.P. & ors. vs. Sita Ram & another, however the learned Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 26.7.2017, dismissed the appeal by specifically observing that "since the employees were categorized in Class-IV services, therefore, it was iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary to effect recovery to such an extent that it would far overweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right of recovery". 3. As regards the petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order of recovery, that was being effected, approached the erstwhile Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 5731/2018, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in LPA No. 69/2017 (supra) with direction to the respondents/competent authority that in case the petitioner is found to be similarly situated as the respondents in LPA No. 69/2017 and further if the judgment in the LPA has attained finality, then similar benefits along with consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month. Save and except this direction, there was no other direction issued by the learned Tribunal. 4. The petitioner has now come up with the instant contempt petition, wherein it is averred that he was conferred with work charge status on 1.1.2002 and his arrears have been calculated to the tune of Rs.3,59,548/- with a condition to release the amount in five installments. Whereas, the petitioner has only been granted one installment of sanctioned arrear amounting to Rs.71,000/- and was assured that rest of the arrears would be paid in four other installments. It is alleged that since the respondents have not taken any steps till date in pursuance to judgment dated 25.9.2018 (Annexure C-1) and ignored the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, contempt proceedings be initiated against them. 5. Proceeding with a contempt is a business between the Court and the contemnor. It is alleged that since the respondents have not taken any steps till date in pursuance to judgment dated 25.9.2018 (Annexure C-1) and ignored the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, contempt proceedings be initiated against them. 5. Proceeding with a contempt is a business between the Court and the contemnor. When a person alleges wilful disobedience of an order passed by another, the onus is wholly on him to substantiate it. The proceedings are like in a criminal case which is inclusive of the standard of proof required. They are quasi criminal nature. The power of the Court, which exercises its contempt jurisdiction, is a special and rare one. Therefore, it has to be exercised with circumspection caution and care. There has to be sufficient evidence leading to a finding on the wilfulness relatable to the contemnor. When there are two views possible on the alleged action or inaction of the contemnor, then the benefit of doubt will have to be extended to him. These are the underlining principles governing contempt proceedings before a Court of law. A mere surmise or conjuncture can never be a basis to haul a person for contempt. An inadvertence mistake or misunderstanding of an order of Court would not lead to contempt. 6. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto 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 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 contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. 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 contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., (1992) AIR SC 2153 ; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr.,2001 AIR SC 3468 ; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) AIR SC 1405 ; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., (2004) AIR SC 942 ; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705 ; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., (2013) AIR SC 1299 ). 7. 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 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, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts do 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. (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) AIR SC 582 ; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., (1989) AIR SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. ''Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct. (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) AIR SC 582 ; Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., (1989) AIR SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1995) AIR SC 308 ; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) AIR SC 1880 ; M/s. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors., (2004) AIR SC 105 ; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. Illiyas, (2006) AIR SC 258 ; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, (2013) 9 SCC 753 ). 8. In Sudhir Vasudeva versus M. George Ravishekaran, (2014) 3 SCC 373 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the power of High Court to punish for contempt, observed as under: "19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also 4 necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly selfevident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 ; V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610 ; Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339 and union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC 613 ." 9. I really wonder how the petitioner could have come up with such a petition, which, to say the least, is not only frivolous, but amounts to gross misuse of the process of the Court, more particularly, the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 10. This petition is clearly misconceived for the simple reason that there was no direction whatsoever passed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal for calculation of arrears or release thereof. 11. From where the petitioner has inferred all this, it is not difficult to guess as the officials of the Forest Department appear to be in active connivance with the petitioner, or lest, such information would not have reached the petitioner. 12. This is not a mere suspicion, but an observation well founded from the reply filed by the respondents themselves. Therefore, it is high time that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests puts her house in order and identifies the black sheep working in the office, who have and are out to create unnecessary liability and burden the Department without there being any adjudication or direction to this effect by any of the Court(s) or Tribunal(s). 13. Since the petitioner has abused the process of the Court, the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Department within a period of four weeks from today. 14. For compliance, list on 26.8.2021.