I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack had decided Original Application No. 91 of 2002 filed by one Smt. Manikmala Maity (opposite party No. 1 in W.P.C No. 4843 of 2004) with a direction to the Railway authorities of S.E. Railway to release DCRG amount payable to her husband. While her husband was paid pension and other retirement benefits, the Railway authorities did not make payment under DCRG although he was representing them regularly. In the meantime, her husband died in March, 1999 and thus, she has claimed interest at the rate of 18% for the delay caused.
2. The said original application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26th June, 2003 directing the respondent to make payment of the DCRG amount and pay interest for the delay @ 10% from 1.11.1997 to 31.10.2002 on the entire amount of DCRG and at the rate of 6% from 01.12.2002 to the preceding month of issuing the order of payment. The final payment was directed to be effected within 30 days.
3. Being aggrieved, the Union of India through General Manager, East Coast Railways, Bhubaneswar and another filed the writ petition registered as W.P. (C) No. 4843 of 2004, for quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal. An application for interim relief was also filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 7153 of 2004. In the said case, it was inter alia, mentioned that in the meantime opposite party, namely Smt. Manikmala Maity had filed a Contempt Petition bearing C.P.(C) No. 102 of 2003 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioners in the said writ petition. A prayer was made therein that further proceeding in the Contempt Case be stayed till final disposal of the writ petition.
4. While entertaining the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4843 of 2004 on 13.9.2004, this Court directed issue of notice on admission indicating therein that this writ petition shall be disposed of at the stage of admission. The above mentioned application for interim relief i.e., Misc. Case No. 7154 of 2003 was also taken up and it was ordered by the Division Bench of this Court that further proceeding in C.P. No. 102 of 2003 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack shall remain stayed for a period of twelve weeks and the Misc. case was allowed. Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 11.1.2005. Again another Misc. Case bearing No. 104 of 2005 was filed indicating therein that twelve weeks period expired on 13.12.2004 and on 22.12.2004, the learned Tribunal took up the contempt petition and directed that since twelve weeks period expired, the Senior DEN (Co-ord) should be present in person on 14.1.2005 for further proceeding in the contempt case and the impugned order dated 22.12.2004 passed by the Tribunal in the O.A. was subject to result of the writ petition. Prayer was made in Misc. Case No. 104 of 2005 filed in the writ petition; W.P.(C) No. 4843 of 2004 that further proceeding in the Contempt petition be stayed till final disposal of the writ petition. The said application was listed on 11.1.2005 before this Court and after hearing Shri A. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.K. Das, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1, the interim order was passed to the effect as quoted hereunder;
As an interim measure, further proceeding in C.P. (C) No. 102 of 2003 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack shall remain stayed until further orders.
xx xx xxxThe Misc. Case is disposed of.
5. Another application, i.e., Misc. Case No. 3101 of 2005 was filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, annexing copy of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.2.2005 in which inter alia, the following order was passed by the Tribunal.
It would appear that the petitioner is not appearing on account of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. However, notice be issued to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing, as petition filed under Section 17 of the A.T. Act. 1985 is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the order staying the contempt proceedings before the Tribunal, if at all has been passed, is non est in the eye of law and therefore, the same is inoperative xx xx xx In view of confinement of the powers of the High Court in so far as proceedings before the tribunal under Section 17 of the A.T. Act. 1985 is concerned-application of Article 227 of the Constitution is not attracted and therefore, the further proceeding in this C.P. will continue. Accordingly, call this matter on 11.3.2005.
6. Finding prima facie cases of suo motu Civil as well as Criminal Contempt, the above two contempt petitions were registered as CONTC No. 872 of 2005 (civil contempt) and CONTR No. 8 of 2005 (criminal contempt) wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties making charges against them. Both the opposite parties have filed their respective show cause in each case raising similar pleas. Opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 have, inter alia, taken the plea in their show cause in paragraph-5.2 which are reproduced as under;
5.2. That it is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal on 22.2.2005 was out come of the fact that the Tribunal failed to appreciate and lay emphasis on the expression in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the following effect:While holding the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution subject to the well established rules of self- restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim order interlocutory orders of the Tribunals.
7. Further both the opposite parties have taken the plea that part of the order which has been quoted above was passed by them on the basis of the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (2) SLR 733 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2002(1) SLR 596.
The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court is quoted as under:
xx xx The need for enacting Section 17 arose, firstly, to avoid doubts, and secondly, because the Tribunals are not 'courts of record'. While holding the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution subject to the well-established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals. However, any order of decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against in view of the specific provision contained in Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act. 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. 1985. Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is a piece of legislation by reference. Xx xx xx. Any order or decision of the TribunaJ punishing for contempt is appealable under Section 19 of the Act to the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar has nowhere said that the orders of the Tribunal holding the contemnor guilty and punishing for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available. The distinction between orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal on matters covered by Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and orders punishing for contempt under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, is this: as against the former there is no remedy of appeal statutorily provided but as against the latter statutory remedy of appeal is provided by Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act itself.
8. In the case of Randheer Singh (supra) the Division Bench of the M.P. High Court has also observed relying upon the above decision of the Hon'ble apex Court that the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 7725 has nowhere said that the orders of the Tribunal holding the contemnor guilty and punishing him for contempt shall also be subject to judicial scrutiny of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution in spite of remedy of statutory appeal provided by Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act being available.
9. It is not disputed that the decision made in the O.A. by the Tribunal was under challenge in the above mentioned writ petition and during pendency of the writ petition, contempt proceeding was initiated by the Tribunal which was a consequential proceeding to the decision made by it, which was under challenge before this Court. Further, there was no order of Tribunal for punishing the contemnor for contempt and as such no appeal could lie against merely issue of notice of the pending contempt case for which this Court granted stay of the consequential proceeding, i.e., contempt proceeding in the writ petition.
10. On granting the interim order by this Court, the opposite parties constituting the Bench, passed the following order which amounts to lowering down the authority of this Court and obstructing the Administration of Justice:
xx xx xx the order staying contempt proceeding before the Tribunal, if at all has been passed is non-est in the eye of law and therefore the same is inoperative.
xx xx xxIn view of confinement of the powers of the High Court in so far as the proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the A.T. Act, 1985 is concerned, the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is not attracted and therefore, the further proceeding in C.P. will continue.
11. The definition of 'criminal contempt' as given in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, reads as follows:
2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.
xx xx xxcriminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes 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.
12. In view of the above, the afore-quoted sentence used by the opposite parties constituting the Bench of the Tribunal, undoubtedly, lowers the authority of this Court and thus, constitutes a criminal contempt. Further, the opposite parties deliberately and intentionally ordered in spite of the order passed by this Court staying the contempt proceeding that further, proceeding in the contempt petition will continue and notice be issued to both the parties to appear before the Tribunal on the next date of hearing. This itself constitutes a civil contempt looking into the definition given in Section 2(b) as it relates to wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court.
13. Therefore, in view of the above, the opp. Parties not only have committed the civil contempt of this Court but also they have committed criminal contempt. Therefore, the explanations of the contemnors are unacceptable. Both of them have intentionally passed the above quoted order and mens rea is involved in such action. In the recent decision in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot and Anr. reported in (2006) S.C. 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under:
Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that Courts' orders are to be followed and complied with.
XX XX XXFurther, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that every one whether individually or collectively, is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is and how rich he may be.
xx xx xxThe apex Court further observed that respect should always be shown to the Court. If any party is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should approach the Court.
14. Both the contemnors are experts in the field of law holding the post of Vice-Chairman and Member of Central Administrative Tribunal respectively. It was not expected of them to use the above quoted language in their order by which the authority of this Court be lowered and same may cause obstruction in the administration of justice. They deliberately directed the contemnors before them to appear in person and the contempt proceeding to be continued. This is an act of civil contempt also.
16. Though they have tendered unconditional apology, but we feel that the apology is not liable to be accepted. In this regard the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. reported in : 1984CriLJ993 is liable to be referred to.
The Apex Court has observed as follows:
We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slapsay sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction.
17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, both the contemnors have undoubtedly committed criminal contempt as well as civil contempt of this Court. We therefore, hold them guilty of criminal contempt as well as civil contempt and convict them thereunder.
N. Prusty, J.
I agree.
18. After pronouncing our judgment holding the contemnors guilty and convicting them thereunder, we have heard Mr. S. N. Nayak holding the brief of Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for contemnor No. 1, Mr. Dhal holding the brief of Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Counsel for contemnor No. 2 on the question of sentence.
19. No doubt the contemnors No. 1 and 2 are the experts in the field of law and are posted as Vice-Chairman and Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal respectively. In view of the language used by them in their order as quoted above lowering down the authority of this Court, obstructing the administration of justice and wilfully directiny that the contempt proceeding before them shall continue and the contemnors shall appear before them, it cannot be certainly termed as the order passed in good faith. They have broken all judicial discipline and propriety by observing that the order passed by this Court is non est in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is inoperative.
Our intention is that in future such thing may not be repeated.
20. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment may not be awarded on them, as we have initiated these contempt proceedings suo motu in the compelling circumstances so that in future such a situation may not arise. Therefore, the contemnors are awarded sentence of fine only that too to the extent of Re.1/- (Rupee one) each for having committed the criminal contempt and further sentence of fine of Re.1/- (Rupee one) each for having committed the civil contempt.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance, Government of India.