Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner
for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer
Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in
July 1995.
4. After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected,
the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary
to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings.
5. By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the
High Court of Delhi directed that :
"34 For all of the aforementioned reasons, the order
dated 16 th October, 2018, passed by the DIG
(CR&VIG) in the Directorate General, CRPF,
imposing the penalty of removal from service on the
Petitioner, is hereby set aside. The minor penalty as
decided by the DA viz., “reduction to a lower stage
in the scale of pay by one stage for a period not
exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and
adversely affecting pension” will be the penalty in
the Petitioner’s case.
35 Consequently, the Petitioner is directed to be
forthwith reinstated in service, with all consequential
benefits, but without any back wages. The date of
reinstatement will relate back to the date of his having
been originally removed from service i.e. 10 th July
1995, for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and
all other consequential benefits including promotions.
The consequential orders by way of implementation
of this judgment be issued not later than 8 weeks
from today.”
1048 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The respondent instituted contempt proceedings before the High
Court of Delhi. He was reinstated in service by an order dated 8
March 2021. The respondent was promoted to the rank of Deputy
Commandant on a notional post with effect from 17 October 2021
by an order dated 22 March 2023. He superannuated from service
on 31 March 2023.
7. In the course of the hearing of the contempt proceedings, the Single
Judge in an order dated 2 June 2023, noted the submission of the
respondent that even if the date of implementation of the minor penalty
was from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till
the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on 31 March
2021. This emerges from paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Single
Judge, which is in the following terms:
"38 The Petitioner in his written submissions dated
02.03.2023 had stated that even if the date of
implementation of minor penalty is considered to
take effect from 16.10.2018, he would be entitled to
all promotions till the rank of IG from the year 2021,
till his date of retirement, i.e. on 31.03.2023. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the
said submission during the course of hearing dated
03.03.2023 and submitted that the Petitioner would
be satisfied if he is granted the rank of IG as on the
date of his retirement.:
8. After recording the above submission, the Single Judge proceeded to
hold that there was a willful disobedience of the directions which were
issued by the Division Bench with respect to pay fixation, seniority
and all other consequential benefits including promotion. The finding
in that regard is contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the
Single Judge, which reads as follows :
"39 This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that there
is willful disobedience by the Respondent(s) of the
directions issued by the Division Bench with respect
to the implementation of the directions issued at
paragraph 35 of the judgment dated 24.12.2019
with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other
consequential benefits including promotion.”
Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit
9. Thereafter, the Single Judge held the Inspector General of Police
(Personnel) and DIG (Personnel) who held office as on 22 March 2023
guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions
contained in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24 December
2019. The Single Judge granted an opportunity to the appellants
herein in the following terms :
"41 This Court, however, grants an opportunity of six (6)
weeks to the aforesaid Contemnors to issue a fresh
order granting promotion to the Petitioner to the rank
of IG to bring him at par with his immediate junior
as per the merit cum seniority list at the time of the
appointment.”
10. It was observed that in case the contemnors did not issue appropriate
orders granting promotion to the respondent to the rank of IG within
the time granted, the case would he heard for sentencing on the
next date of hearing.
11. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench against
the order of the Single Judge dated 2 June 2023. The Division Bench,
however, rejected the Letters Patent Appeal as not being maintainable
on the ground that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of
Courts Act would not be maintainable since no punishment had been
imposed by the Single Judge and the observations made by the
Single Judge were not to be construed as crystallizing any right in
favour of the respondent. On this understanding, the Division Bench
has observed as follows :
"52 He submitted that if the observations made by the
Court in the impugned judgment are not construed as
crystalising any rights in favour of the respondent and
are only read as confined to the question whether the
appellants have committed any willful disobedience
of the order of the Court, the appellants would be
satisfied.
53 In view of our understanding of the impugned
judgment as noted above, the learned Single Judge
has not decided any dispute regarding the rights
and obligations of the parties other than whether
the appellants had committed contempt of court. All
1050 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
observations made by the learned Single Judge must
be read only for the purposes of determining whether
the appellants had willfully violated the judgment
dated 24.12.2019 issued by this Court.”
12. The narrow issue which falls for consideration at the present stage
is as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the
Single Judge dated 2 June 2023 was maintainable.
13. The law on the subject is settled by a judgment of a two Judge Bench
of this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others
v. Chunilal Nanda and Others.1 Paragraph 11 of the decision sums
up the principles succinctly as follows :
"11 The position emerging from these decisions, in regard
to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings
may be summarised thus:
I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable
only against an order or decision of the High
Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to
punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing
punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings
for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings
for contempt nor an order dropping the
proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting
or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
circumstances, they may be open to challenge
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court
can decide whether any contempt of court has
been committed, and if so, what should be the
punishment and matters incidental thereto.
In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to
adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the
merits of the dispute between the parties.
1 [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 : (2006) 5 SCC 299
Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit
IV. Any direction issued or decision made by
the High Court on the merits of a dispute
between the parties, will not be in the exercise
of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and,
therefore, not appealable under Section 19
of the CC Act. The only exception is where
such direction or decision is incidental to or
inextricably connected with the order punishing
for contempt, in which event the appeal under
Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the
incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides
an issue or makes any direction, relating to the
merits of the dispute between the parties, in a
contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is
not without remedy. Such an order is open to
challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order
was of a learned Single Judge and there is a
provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking
special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India (in other cases).
The first point is answered accordingly.”
14. Following the decision in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd., it is
a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against
an order imposing punishment for contempt.
15. In the order dated 2 June 2023, it has been held that the respondents
before the Court, namely, the appellants to these proceedings are
guilty of contempt. A Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable
under Section 19, if the matter were to only rest there. However,
from the extracts which have been reproduced in the earlier part of
this judgment, it is evident that the Single Judge:
(i) Recorded the submission of the respondent herein (as set
out in the written submissions dated 2 March 2023) that even
if the implementation of the minor penalty was to take effect
from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions
till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on
31 March 2023; and
1052 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(ii) Held that there was willful disobedience of the directions issued
by the Division Bench on 24 December 2019 with respect to
pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits
including promotion.
16. The Single Judge, after recording the submissions as adverted to
above, entered a specific finding in paragraph 39 that “this court is
therefore, of the opinion that there is willful disobedience” (emphasis
supplied). The above finding follows immediately upon the previous
paragraph of the order which records the contention of the respondent
herein that he was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG, in any
event with effect from 2021.
17. Bearing in mind the above finding, the Single Judge gave an
opportunity to the appellants “to issue a fresh order granting
promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG” to bring him at par
with his immediate junior. Reading the entirety of the order of the
Single Judge, it is clear that besides holding that the appellants
(who we the respondents before the Single Judge) were guilty of
contempt of court, there is a crystallized finding that the respondent
herein was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect
from 2021.
18. The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench,
in paragraph 52, noted the submission of the respondent that the
judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystallizing
any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined
to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed
a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24
December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission
and observed that “in view of our understanding of the impugned
judgment, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has not decided
any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties” other
than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. The judgment of the
Division Bench lost sight of the fact that whether the appeal was
maintainable would have to be construed on a plain reading of the
judgment of the Single Judge. Two aspects were covered by the
judgment of the Single Judge :
Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the
order dated 24 December 2019; and
Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit
Secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank
of IG.
The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at
the present stage. The finding that the respondent was entitled to
promotion to the rank of IG would be amenable to an appeal in terms
of the law laid down by this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
Bank Ltd. (supra), more particularly in paragraph 11(V) which has
been extracted above.
19. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order of the Division Bench dated 10 May 2024 and restore Letters
Patent Appeal 157 of 2024 in Contempt Case No 198 of 2020 together
with the associated interlocutory applications to the file of the Division
Bench for consideration on merits in terms of the above directions.
20. Mr Sanjay Ghosh, senior counsel appearing for the respondent states
that no coercive steps would be taken against the appellants till the
next date of listing before the High Court of Delhi.
21. All the contentions of the parties on the merits of the Letters Patent
Appeal are kept open.
22. The Delhi High Court may consistent with the exigencies of work,
take up the Letters Patent Appeal for expeditious disposal.
23. The Appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms.
24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†