Shaik Mastan Vali vs A Vijaya Sarada Reddy & Ors.

Ravi Cheemalapati, J

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for wilful disobedience of orders dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1357/2012.

Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the contemnors/respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration contended that, the petitioner worked as Physical Director in the institute belonging to respondents i.e., Nalanda Institute of Engineering and Technology from 27.06.2006 to 14.12.2009 and he was asked not to attend to his duties from 15.12.2009 onwards amounting to oral termination. The said termination is without any notice and without any enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.9705/2010 which was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of termination on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Assailing the same, the respondent institute filed review petition vide WPMP.No.32303 of 2011 which was dismissed on 22.08.2012 on the ground that the case of the review petitioners does not fall under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C., 1908. Aggrieved by the said review order, respondent institute filed W.A.No.1357/2012 and also filed W.A.No.1406/2012 against the final order in W.P.No.9705/2010. Both the appeals were heard together and got dismissed vide common order dated on 30.11.2021 by the Division Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.12.2021 requesting the respondent to reinstate him as Physical Director and pay the arrears of salary by implementing the orders of this court. Inspite of the same, the respondent has not acted upon and thereby wilfully flouted the orders of this Hon’ble court. He further submitted that it is well settled that once the termination order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service even though such a direction is not given by the Court. As such, the respondents are guilty of contempt of Courts and are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly prayed to punish the respondents herein.

4(a). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents on counter submitted that, the 1st respondent has resigned to the post of Secretary, Nalanda Institute of Engineering and Technology in the year 2019 itself and he was not aware of the orders dated 30.11.2021 and also the representation dated 14.12.2021, as such there is no disobedience of the orders passed by this court and the contempt is liable to be dismissed against him.

(b) He further contended that, in so far as 2nd respondent is concerned, there is no specific direction given by the learned single judge, whatsoever either to continue the petitioner in the Educational Institution or to reinstate him into service or to pay arrears to him. Moreover, in the said order, it was observed that the order passed by this Court will not preclude the Nalanda Institute from taking appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with law. This shows that this Court has given liberty to the respondents to take steps against the petitioner in accordance with law, as the order passed by the learned single judge is not on merits wherein the termination order of the petitioner was set aside, only on the ground that, the procedure has not been followed while passing the said termination order.

(c) Learned counsel for the respondent on additional counter further submitted that, upon enquiry, it came to know that petitioner is working in Malineni Lakshmaiah Women’s Engineering College, Pulladi Gunta, Vatticherukuni Mandal, Prathipadu Road, Guntur, from the year 2008. However, he could not secure relevant records to substantiate that the petitioner is working in the said organisation as he seems to have managed the management of the said organisation to maintain secrecy so that he can project before this Court as if he is not working anywhere. However, the petitioner simply denied the same but did not specifically mention that he is not gainfully employed elsewhere.

(d) He further submitted that, even in the said circumstances, the respondents are now willing to reinstate the petitioner into service if he comes to the respondent’s institution. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.

The case of the petitioner is that, as against the termination order, he filed W.P.No.9705/2010. The said writ petition was allowed on 08.07.2011 and the termination order of the petitioner as Physical Director was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice i.e., no notice or charge memo has been issued and no enquiry was conducted and also on the ground that the respondent institution has not contested the case so as to apprise this Court with regard to conducting any enquiry or initiating any disciplinary proceedings before termination of the services of the petitioner. However, in the said order, it was observed that, the Nalanda Institute will not be precluded from taking appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with law. The appeals preferred by the Nalanda Institute were also got dismissed vide common order dated on 30.11.2021 by the Division Bench of this Court. Initially this contempt case was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and later it was sent to this Single Bench, accordingly it was listed before this Court.

The prime ground raised by the petitioner is that once the termination order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and further entitled for backwages and all other attendant benefits with interest at the rate of 12@ per annum. The learned Single Judge while allowing the W.P.No.9705/2010 had only set aside the termination order but not granted the other reliefs like back wages, attendant benefits which means they deemed to have been rejected. Further, the petitioner did not choose to prefer appeal against the other reliefs which are sought in the writ petition.

No doubt, it is well settled that once the termination order is set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner even though such a direction is not given by the Court.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not placed any material to show that the petitioner is working in Malineni Lakshmaiah Women’s Engineering College. There is some force in the said contention. The respondents have not placed any relevant material in that regard. Similarly, the petitioner has also not specifically pleaded that he has not been gainfully employed since 2008. To sustain all these years from 2008, the petitioner has to work to lead normal life. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has not specifically contended in his reply affidavit that he is not gainfully employed elsewhere from the year 2008. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has instructions that respondents are willing to reinstate the petitioner into their institution if he appears before them whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted to pass orders on merits in the contempt case.

In Ram Kishan Vs Tarun Bajaj (2014) 16 SCC 204, it was held that, 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 a 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.

In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors 1999 (7) SCC 569, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt. It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out, not otherwise. The Court noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.

In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors 2002 (4) SCC 21, the Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. The power under the Act must be exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery system. In the present case, the order passed by this Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, as such breach of such order would amount to contempt of Courts.

From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing the person for Contempt of Courts is indeed a drastic step and normally such an action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme steps. For a proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance of the orders passed by the Courts, it is required to take strict view and it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.

Undoubtedly, once the termination order is set aside, the respondents have to reinstate the petitioner into service. But in the present case, inspite of making a representation, the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner into service which amounts to wilful disobedience. However, in view of the decisions referred supra, this court, instead of imposing the sentence of imprisonment, with a lineant view, would inclined to impose fine of Rs.2000/-to the respondent and further would inclined to impose costs of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent in view of the expenditure incurred by the petitioner and mental agony caused to him by the action of the respondent.

Furthermore, in view that the 1st respondent has already resigned to the post of Secretary in Nalanda Institute of Engineering and Technology by the date of Court’s order and the petitioner representation, there is no disobedience on part of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is guilty of contempt of Courts. Therefore, in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this Court is inclined to allow the contempt case with the following directions, by imposing costs on the respondent by following the decision in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Anr Vs P.Ravi Kumar & others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681.

(i) The 2nd respondent/contemnor concerned is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- within thirty(30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. He shall deposit the said amount in the Registry of the A.P.High Court and on such deposit being made, the Registry shall remit the amount to A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee. In default payment of fine, the 2nd respondent/contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days.

(ii) Further, the 2nd respondent/contemnor is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards costs to the petitioners from his own pocket within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default payment of costs, the 2nd respondent/contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent institution within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such appearance, the respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service as per law and Rules in vogue. With regard to other benefits, the petitioner shall approach appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the contempt case is allowed. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.