Darshan Kaur vs Surinder Mohan

Sat Pal, J.

By this judgment, we are disposing of LPA No. 512 of 1996, COCP No. 1162 of 1995 and Crl. OCP No. 14 of 1996, as all the three cases arise out of the same judgment dated 24.4.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in COCP No. 1162 of 1995. LPA No. 512 of 1996 has been filed against the abovementioned order by which the appellant has been given notice as to why she should not be awarded the punishment having committed civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b). In Cr. OCP No. 14 of 1996 notice has been issued by the Court on its own motion against Mrs. Darshan Kaur, Director Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab, Chandigarh (appellant in the LPA) as the learned Single Judge was prima facie of the view that the said Mrs. Darshan Kaur has also committed criminal contempt for having filed a false affidavit in the proceedings in COCP No. 1162 of 1995.

COCP No. 1162 of 1995 was filed by Surinder Mohan, exmaster, against said Mrs. Darshan Kaur for having not complied with the order dated 4th May, 1995, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6495 of 1995.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Surinder Mohan, retired S.S. Master (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) filed writ petition bearing CWP No. 6495 of 1995 in this Court seeking relief with regard to the nongrant of Lecture grade. This writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 4.5. 1995 and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the following order :

"The petitioner has some grievance as regards to nongrant of lecturer''s grade. On January 3, 1995, the petitioner has made representation to the Director, Public Instruction Punjab, Chandigarh, setting out his grievance with a request to release the lecturer''s scale with effect from June 20, 1986 (See Annexure P.5). This representation is still pending. The second respondent the Director, Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab, Chandigarh do dispose of the petitioner''s representation, Annexure P.5, expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of this order before him. Copy of the order be supplied on payment of urgent costs."

From the above mentioned order, it may be noted that the appellant was directed to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of the order before her.

The writ petitioner submitted a photocopy of the certified copy of the above mentioned order along with a letter dated 6.6.1995 to Smt. Darshan Kaur, Director, Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) for implementation of the aforesaid order. It may be pointed out here that a copy of the above mentioned order, dated 4.5.1995 sent by the Registry of this Court was also received by the appellant Smt. Darshan Kaur, on 17.7.1995. Since the representation submitted by the writ petitioner along with his letter dated 6.6.1995 was not disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of this letter, the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing COCP No. 1162 of 1995 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for punishing the appellant, Smt. Darshan Kaur. This petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.10.1995 and the learned Single Judge issued notice to the appellant Smt. Darshan Kaur for 12.12.1995 to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Act be not initiated against her. On receipt of the notice to show cause, appellant Smt. Darshan Kaur disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner by her order date 11.12.1995. By this order, it was decided that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the benefit demanded by him in his representation.

Appellant Smt. Darshan Kaur after compliance of the order dated 4.5.1995, also filed reply dated 18.1.1995 to the show cause notice. In para 3 of the reply it was stated as under:

"Contents of Para 3 of the petition are denied. The judgment and the representation was not received in the office of the deponent. However, the representation of the petitioner along with the judgment of this Hon''ble Court received from the Hon''ble Court has been considered and speaking order has been passed vide Annexure R.1."

The writ petitioner filed replication dated 23.2.1996 to this reply. In reply to Para 3 of the reply filed by appellant Mrs. Darshan Kaur, the writ petitioner has stated as follows:

"Contents of Para 3 of the written statement are vehemently denied, that the judgment and representation was not sent to the respondents by petitioner. The petitioner sent the same by registered post on 6.6.1995 vide receipt No. 2771, copy of which is enclosed herewith. The petitioner also has the original copy of the receipt which may be produced before the Court if desired. Hence, respondent has misled the Court by filing a wrong affidavit and as such is also guilty of criminal contempt. Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and other, reported as AIR 1995 SC 1795 has held:

"Filing of false affidavit or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavit or giving of false statement and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law."

In para 3 of the replication, the writ petitioner specifically pointed out that he had sent the copy of the judgment and representation to the appellant on 6.6.1996 by registered post vide receipt No. 2771. The appellant on receipt of the copy of the replication immediately filed amended reply on 26.2.1996 to the show cause notice in COCP No. 1162 of 1995. Para 3 of the amended reply reads as under :

"That the representation of the petitioner was received with the photostat copy of judgment of this Hon''ble Court on 6.6.1995. The certified copy of the judgment of this Hon''ble Court was received by the deponent office on 17.7.1995. And the deponent has considered the representation of the petitioner. The deponent deeply regrets and tenders unconditional apology for not giving these dates in her earlier affidavit dated 18.1.1996 and speaking orders has been passed Annexure R.1. However, it is to be submitted that the petitions filed by the Post Graduate masters working in the Government Schools in the State of Punjab claiming lecturer grade w.e.f. the date of acquiring higher qualification was dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court and the Supreme Court and the case is reported as AIR 1984 SC 1901 Gurpal Tuli and others v. State of Punjab and others along with a bunch of writ petitions."

The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 24.4.1996, held that there could be no doubt that respondent Mrs. Darshan Kaur (appellant herein) had intentionally and deliberately avoided to decide the representation of the writ petitioner within the time fixed in the order i.e. three months from the date of the production of the copy of the judgment and it could not be accepted for a moment that the lapse was unintentional and nondeliberate. It was held that appellant Smt. Darshan Kaur had committed the civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and she was given notice for 15.5.1996 as to why she should not be awarded punishment for having committed the civil contempt. Vide the aforesaid order, dated 24.4.1996, the learned Single Judge further held that he was prima facie of the view that respondent Ms. Darshan Kaur (appellant herein) has also committed the criminal contempt for having filed a false replyaffidavit dated 18.1.1996 and directed that since a Division Bench of this Court could take cognizance of the alleged criminal contempt, papers be placed before the Hon''ble then Acting Chief Justice for putting up the matter before an appropriate Bench. It was pursuant to this direction that proceedings in Crl. OCP No. 14 of 1995 were initiated against the appellant Mrs. Darshan Kaur.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 24.4.1996 pased by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed LPA No. 512 of 1996 against that part of the impugned order by which she was held guilty for committing the civil contempt. Vide order dated 20.11.1996, Hon''ble the Chief Justice directed that since civil contempt and criminal contempt arise out of the same order, the matter be placed before the same Division Bench. It is in these circumstances that LPA No. 512 of 1996, Cr. OCP No. 14 of 1995 and COCP No. 1162 of 1995 were listed before us.

Mr Sarin, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the order dated 4.5.1995, pased by the Division Bench of the Court, the appellant was directed to dispose of the petitioner''s representation Annexure P.5, expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of the order before her. He submitted that this representation was received in the office on 6.6.1995 but it was not brought to the notice of the appellant by the dealing assistant. He submitted that a copy of the aforesaid order alongwith the representation was, however, received by the appellant directly from the High Court on 17.7.1995. He submitted that in terms of the said order, the representation of the writ petitioner ought to have been disposed of preferably within three months from 6.6.1995. He further submitted that as per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles Vol. II, the word ''preferable'' means "more desirable" and in Webster''s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language the word ''preferable'' has been show to mean "more desirable". He, therefore, contended that in terms of the order dated 4.5.1995 pased by this Court, it was desired by the Court that the appellant should dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner on or before 5.9.1995 but the said order could not be taken to mean that the representation must have been disposed of by 5.9.1995. He, however, submitted that in spite of the aforesaid facts, the appellant having full regard to the Hon''ble Court, accepted this order to mean that the representation of the writ petitioner should be disposed of on or before 5.9.1995. When she received the notice from this Hon''ble Court for 12.12.1995, to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her, she disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner a day before the date fixed i.e. on 11.12.1995. She also filed reply dated 18.1.1996 to the show cause notice and in that reply she tendered unconditional apology for having not complied with the order dated 4.5.1995 within the period stated in this order. He, therefore, contended that keeping in view the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have discharged the contempt notice. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Bigyan Kumar and others v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1025.

(ii) M.L. Sachdeva v. Union of India, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 22 : JT 1990(4) SC 329.

(iii) Munish Gupta and others v. Gurdas Roy, 1995(3) SCC 559.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Court must record first finding that disobedience by the condemner was wilful and intentional. He submitted that since this finding was not recorded by the learned Single Judge, before passing the impugned order, the order under challenge was liable to be set aside. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 308.

The learned counsel produced the original file in the Court and contended that after the receipt of the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995 from the High Court, action for disposing of the representation of the writ petitioner was initiated on 8.8.1995 and finally the representation was rejected on 11.12.1995. He, therefore, contended that noncompliance of the said order was not wilful or deliberate.

Mr. Cheema, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Crl. OCP No. 14 of 1995 referred to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1996(1) SC 328 "Crl. contempt" defined in Section 2(c) means interference with the administration of justice in any other manner. A false or a misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. He also referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case Chander Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 239 that "the legal position is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the Court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt as it would interfere with the administration of justice."

Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned two cases, the learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the alleged wrong statement in para 3 of the reply filed by the appellant was not made by her to obtain a favourable order or to interfere with due course of judicial proceedings. He submitted that para 3 of the reply filed by the appellant to show cause notice also does not show that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to defraud this Hon''ble Court.

He submitted that in para 3 of the unamended reply to the show cause notice, though the appellant had denied the receipt of the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995 from the writ petitioner but in the same paragraph the appellant had stated that the copy of the judgment sent by the Registry of this Court was received by her and in terms of the said judgment she had since disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner vide order dated 11.12.1995. Further for the delay in disposing of the representation, the appellant had tendered unqualified apology. He submitted that after the receipt of the copy of the replication filed by the writ petitioner in the contempt proceedings wherein it was stated that the writ petitioner had sent the representation along with his letter dated 6.6.1995, the appellant immediately thereafter filed the amended reply to the show cause notice wherein she admitted that the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995 was received in her office. He, therefore, contended that these facts clearly showed that the appellant never intended to file a false affidavit. He also submitted that after the receipt of the replication, the appellant also conducted the enquiry in her office and as a result of that enquiry, it was found that one of her assistants namely Kessar Singh who had received the letter dated 6.6.1995 sent by the writ petitioner did not bring that letter to the notice of the appellant and after the contempt proceedings were initiated, with a view to conceal his negligence, he added a line in para 3 that a copy of the judgment was not received from the writ petitioner and this line was added by him after the draft reply had been settled by office of Advocate General, Punjab. He submitted that the said official as a result of departmental enquiry had since been awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 4.3.1995.

Mr. Kakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the word "expeditiously and preferably within three months" meant that the representation had to be disposed of within three months from the date a copy of the order was produced before the appellant. He submitted that since the appellant deliberately did not dispose of the representation within the period given by this Court vide order dated 4.5.1995, she had committed "civil contempt" defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

The learned counsel further submitted that in para 17 of the grounds of appeal, the appellant had put the blame on the dealing assistant Kessar Singh. He submitted putting the blame on the dealing assistant that he did not put up the file before the appellant, was not satisfactory explanation and as such this explanation should not be accepted by this Court. In support of this submission he placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Satdev Singh v. Smt. Satwant Reddy and others, 1997(2) RSJ 1.

Learned counsel further submitted that order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction was binding on all concerned and those who disregarded the Court''s order, did so at their own peril. He contended that the Court was under a duty to see that confidence of the public in the institution of Courts was not shaken by the executive authorities by their disregard to the orders of the Court. In support of this submission he placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own Motion v. Sh. N.S. Kanwar Executive Engineer, 1995(2) ILR (Punjab and Haryana) 35.

Learned counsel further submitted that the apology tendered by the appellant should not be accepted as she had deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order passed by this Hon''ble Court and had also filed a false affidavit. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i)

Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, 1995(1) RCR 210 : 1995 SCC (Cri.) 239.

(ii) T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka, 1995(3) RSJ 434.

(iii) Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795.

20 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be relevant to reproduce section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act which read as under :

"2(b) "Civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

2(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."

From the definition of civil contempt, we find that if any person willfully disobeys judgment of the Court, it amounts to civil contempt. In the present case the appellant was directed to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner expeditiously and preferably within three months (emphasis supplied) from the date of production of the order. As per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles Vol. II ''preferable'' means more desirable and the same meaning has been given by Webster''s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. Thus the order dated 4.5.1995 passed by this Court meant that the Court desired that the representation of the writ petitioner should be disposed of expeditiously and within three months from the date of production of the order. But it does not mean that in case the representation is not decided strictly within three months from the date of production of the order, it would maount ot wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. However, in case the representation is not disposed of even within reasonable period after three months the Court may consider in the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether it amounts to wilful disobedience of the order. But in the present case we may not detain ourselves to go deep into this aspect of the matter as the affidavit filed by the appellant in reply to the notice issued to her by the learned Single Judge of this Court to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Act be not initiated, itself shows that the appellant had accepted and understood the order of this Court dated 4.5.1995 to mean that the representation of the writ petitioner was to be disposed of within three months from the date of its production before her. This fact is clear from the unconditional apology tendered by her in the delay which had occurred in the implementation of the order/directions of this Court.

As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the appellant had produced the original file with regard to the disposal of the representation of the writ petitioner. From the said file, it was evident that after the receipt of the copy of the order dated 4.5.1995 directly from the Registry of this Court, action for disposal of the representation was initiated in the office of the appellant on 8.8.1995. Further as soon as the appellant received the notice for 12.12.1995 from this Court to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against her, she took prompt action and disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner a day before the date fixed by this Court i.e. on 11.12.1995. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also keeping in view the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant for the delay which had occurred in the implementation of the order dated 4.5.1995, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge holding the appellant guilty of having committed the civil contempt under section 2(b) of the Act, cannot be sustained. The view we have taken finds support from the two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bigyan Kumar (supra) and M.L. Sachdeva (supra)

Now coming to the suo motu notice issued by this Court for initiating criminal contempt proceedings we have carefully examined para 3 of the unamended reply affidavit, para 3 of the replication filed by the writ petitioner and para3 of the amended reply affidavit filed by the appellant in COCP No. 1162 of 1995. In para 3 of the unamended reply, the appellant had denied the receipt of the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995 sent to her by the writ petitioner along with his letter dated 6.6.1995 but in the same paragraph she had admitted the receipt of the copy of the judgment and representation received from this Court directly. After the writ petitioner filed replication dated 23.2.1996 wherein it was stated that he had sent the copy of the judgment and his representation with his letter dated 6.6.1995 by registered post, the appellant immediately thereafter filed the amended reply on 26.2.1996 and in the amended reply, she admitted the receipt of the copy of the judgment and representation sent by the writ petitioner in addition to the copy of the judgment received from the Court directly. From the order dated 4.3.1997 copy of which has been brought on record alongwith CM 352/97, we find that the words with regard to the nonreceipt of letter dated 6.6.1995 and its enclosures from the writ petitioner were inserted by the dealing assistant Kessar Singh after the reply affidavit has been settled by the office of the Advocate General Punjab and for this act, Kessar Singh was issued chargesheet and after conducting departmental enquiry, has been awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

From these facts, it cannot be said that the nonmentioning of receipt of copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995 from the writ petitioner (though simultaneously acknowledging the receipt of the coy of the same order directly from the Court) in the unamended reply affidavit was with intent to deceive this Court, or it was deliberately and wilfully made by the appelant to obtain a favourable order which would have interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings. This would, therefore, not amount to criminal contempt defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Afzal (supra). In this case it was held that criminal contempt means interference with the administration of justice when a false statement is made deliberately and wilfully by a party to obtain a favourable order which would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.

The judgment in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) is not applicable to this case as in that case the contemner deliberately disobeyed the order of the Supreme Court and allowed admission to NRI students in excess of quota fixed by the Supreme Court. The judgment in the case of Satdev Singh is again not applicable to the facts of this case as the contemner in that case was directed to get the enquiry completed within three months unlike as in the present case it is preferably within three months. Besides nothing on record was shown as to what steps were taken to comply with the orders of the Court. The judgment in the case of Chandra Shashi is also not of any assistance to the respondent as in that case forged document was filed in the Court but in the present case, even in para 3 of the unamended reply, the appellant had not completely denied the receipt of the copy of the judgment dated 4.5.1995. Further on receipt of the copy of the replication, amended reply was filed promptly by the appellant.

The judgment in the case of Dhananjay Sharma is also of no assistance to the respondent. In the said case, the contemners filed affidavits wherein they denied that the detenus had been detained in their custody though it was proved by evidence that they had detained the detenus illegally. In the present case as stated earlier, the only discrepancy in para 3 of the unamended reply affidavit was that the appellant had not acknowledged receipt of the copy of the judgment received from the writ petitioner along with his letter dated 6.6.1995 but in the same paragraph she had acknowledged a copy of the same judgment received from the High Court directly. Even the omission to acknowledge the copy of the judgment received from the writ petitioner has been fully explained by the appellant and in fact Kesar Singh who had inserted the words with regard to nonreceipt of the copy of the judgment from the writ petitioner has been awarded punishment after conducting departmental enquiry. Further the appellant immediately on receipt of the replication, filed the amended reply affidavit containing the correct particulars.

For the reasons recorded herein above LPA 512 of 1996 is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24.4.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP No. 1162 of 1995 is set aside and contempt notices with regard to both civil contempt as well as criminal contempt are discharged. With this judgment COCP No. 1162 of 1995 and Crl. OCP No. 14 of 1995 also stand disposed of. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.