2007 (2) TMI 643 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in a situation of this nature, the High Court was justified in initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and that too suo motu?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the compassionate appointment of the respondent.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in initiating suo motu contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Validity of the termination of the respondent's appointment by the appellant institute.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Compassionate Appointment of the Respondent:

The respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Chowkidar in Class IV grade on a temporary basis after a gap of about 15 years following the death of his grandfather, Shri B.P. Sinha. However, it was later revealed that the respondent was not the natural grandson but the grandson of Shri B.P. Sinha's cousin brother. The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule of equality in public employment, meant specifically for the widow or dependent children of the deceased employee to prevent the family from becoming destitute. The Court cited precedents, including *Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh* and *Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao*, to assert that appointments on compassionate grounds must adhere strictly to the constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16. The Court held that the respondent's appointment was illegal as it did not conform to the scheme of the Institute and was granted after an undue delay of 15 years.

2. Whether the High Court was Justified in Initiating Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings:

The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant institute for allegedly flouting its judgment by terminating the respondent's services without a disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court questioned the justification for such proceedings, noting that the appellant institute, being a State under Article 12, is constitutionally obligated to ensure equality in appointments. The Court observed that the respondent's appointment was illegal and obtained through fraud, thus rendering it a nullity. The Court emphasized that principles of res judicata do not apply to orders passed without jurisdiction, as established in *Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu* and *Union of India v. Pramod Gupta*. The Court concluded that the High Court should not have initiated contempt proceedings, especially when the writ petition was still pending and the appellant acted bona fide in compliance with another High Court order.

3. Validity of the Termination of the Respondent's Appointment:

The termination of the respondent's appointment was based on the High Court's directions in a contempt case filed by Mithilesh Kumar, who alleged illegal appointments on compassionate grounds. The appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent, and after finding his reply unsatisfactory, terminated his services. The Supreme Court held that the appellant acted within its rights and in compliance with the High Court's directive. The Court noted that the termination was justified as the respondent's appointment was illegal, and the appellant had provided an opportunity for the respondent to show cause. The Court concluded that the appellant's actions were bona fide and should not attract contempt proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent's appointment was illegal, the initiation of contempt proceedings was unjustified, and the termination of the respondent's services was valid. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to constitutional principles in public appointments and the limited scope of compassionate appointments.

← Previous Next →