9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 537 - SC - Indian LawsChallenging the suspension of Secretary - pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings -contempt proceedings - pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Directors - HELD THAT - 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 u/s 19 of 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 u/s 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. The 'Bank' as such was not a party to the contempt proceedings. The learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the Chairman and the Secretary-in-Charge represented the 'Bank' by referring to them as 'Respondent Bank' and directing them to reinstate the complainant (first respondent herein) and to pay all salary arrears to him. If the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge were considered as representing the Bank for issuing such directions, certainly they could file an appeal against such directions. The Chairman of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer, the previous Enquiry Officer (H. K. Maiti, whose appointment was revoked on 3.10.1997) and the Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank were shown as contemnors/respondents 1 to 4. As H.K. Maiti was not a party to the writ petition, and as he did not conduct the enquiry, there was no question of his disobeying any order. After perusing the records, the court by order dated 20.11.1998 came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for issuing a show cause notice only against Sri S.K. Das (Enquiry Officer). This meant that no case was made out for issue of show cause notice to the Chairman and Secretary-in- Charge of the Bank. In fact, it was not the case of the first respondent that after the appointment of S.K. Das as Enquiry Officer, there was any disobedience by the Bank. These were totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances, there was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank and its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such directions, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the course of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and the direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set aside. During the pendency of this appeal, the Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted his report dated 18.7.2002. No action has been taken thereon in view of the pendency of this civil appeal and the interim order dated 25.2.2002 which permitted only the completion of the enquiry. In view of this decision, there will now be no impediment for the Bank to take further action based on such Inquiry Report. Thus, we dispose of these matters as follows (i) CA is allowed. The order dated 26.2.2001 of the Calcutta High Court is set aside. Directions (2) and (3) as also the direction that the suspension shall be immediately deemed to have been revoked contained in the orde of the learned Single Judge passed in CPAN are deleted. (ii) SLP (C) are dismissed as infructuous. (iii) The appellant-Bank is at liberty to take further action in pursuance of the Inquiry Report dated 18.7.2002, in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Appealability under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Availability of intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Scope of directions that can be issued in contempt proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re: Point No. (i) - Appealability under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, allows appeals only against orders or decisions of the High Court that punish for contempt. The Supreme Court, referencing precedents such as *Baradakanta Mishra v. Justice Gatikrushna Misra* and *D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal*, clarified that appeals under Section 19 are maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt. Orders that initiate, refuse to initiate, or drop contempt proceedings, or acquit the contemnor, are not appealable under this section. Such orders may be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution in special circumstances. The Court emphasized that in contempt proceedings, the High Court should not adjudicate on the merits of the dispute between the parties. Re: Point No. (ii) - Availability of intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent: Clause 15 of the Letters Patent allows for an intra-court appeal from a 'judgment' of a single Judge. The Supreme Court, referencing *Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr.*, explained that a 'judgment' under clause 15 includes final judgments, preliminary judgments, and intermediary or interlocutory judgments that decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties. The Court held that the order dated 20.11.1998, which contained directions on the merits of the dispute, was an 'interlocutory judgment' and thus appealable under clause 15. The Division Bench erred in holding that the appeal was not maintainable because it was filed by the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge eo nomine and not by the Bank itself. Re: Point No. (iii) - Scope of directions that can be issued in contempt proceedings: The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had issued several directions in the contempt proceedings, including reinstating the complainant, revoking the suspension, and appointing a new Enquiry Officer. The Supreme Court held that these directions were beyond the scope of contempt proceedings and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that the High Court, in contempt proceedings, should focus on whether there was willful disobedience of its orders and, if so, punish for contempt. The directions to reinstate the employee, pay arrears of salary, and revoke the suspension were set aside. Conclusion: 1. CA No. 1727/2002: The appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.2.2001 of the Calcutta High Court in MAT No. 4075/1998 is set aside. Directions (2) and (3) and the direction that "the suspension shall be immediately deemed to have been revoked" in the order dated 20.11.1998 of the learned Single Judge are deleted. 2. SLP (C) Nos. 13045-46/2003: These special leave petitions are dismissed as infructuous. 3. Further Action: The appellant-Bank is at liberty to take further action based on the Inquiry Report dated 18.7.2002, in accordance with law. 4. Costs: Parties to bear their respective costs.
|
