2010 (11) TMI 1080 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.
2. Limitation and service of charge memo.
3. Tribunal's initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
4. Adherence to procedural rules in contempt proceedings.

Summary:

1. Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant:
The State of Karnataka initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant, an Indian Administrative Service Officer, on allegations of irregularities in the allotment of wheat u/s a special programme. The proceedings were based on a preliminary enquiry report dated 31.3.1997.

2. Limitation and Service of Charge Memo:
The Appellant filed O.A. No. 715 of 2002 before the Tribunal to quash the Articles of charge dated 30.11.1999, claiming she received the charge memo only on 19.6.2002. The Respondents contended that the charge memo was issued on 2.12.1999 by Registered Post with AD. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of limitation but instead issued a show cause notice for criminal contempt against the Appellant.

3. Tribunal's Initiation of Criminal Contempt Proceedings:
The Tribunal held the Appellant guilty of perjury and criminal contempt, imposing imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The Appellant's writ petition to the High Court was dismissed, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the Tribunal should have framed an issue on limitation and decided it on merit rather than initiating criminal contempt proceedings prematurely.

4. Adherence to Procedural Rules in Contempt Proceedings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring strict adherence to procedural rules. The Tribunal failed to follow the prescribed procedure u/s the Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992, such as framing charges and providing the Appellant an opportunity to rebut presumptions. The Court highlighted that contempt proceedings should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances with clear evidence of deliberate falsehood.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 19.12.2002, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the necessity of following procedural rules and principles of natural justice in contempt proceedings.