9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the submission that the bank was issuing a charge-sheet. The Bank was directed to deliver a copy of the charge-sheet and pay the arrears of subsistence allowance within one week. The first respondent was directed to file his written statement within 10 days. The Enquiry Officer was directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order subject to first respondent rendering full cooperation for the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. 3. A charge-sheet dated 1.7.1995 was issued to the first respondent containing nine charges. The first Respondent filed his written statement on 17.7.1995. The Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report dated 14.9.1995 finding the first respondent guilty of all charges. A copy of the said report was furnished to the first respondent under cover of bank's letter dated 25.9.1995 giving him an opportunity to submit his representation. 4. At that stage, the first respondent filed another writ petition [CO No. 20008 (W) of 1995] before the High Court for quashing the enquiry proceedings alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer (Asit Mahapatra). A learned single Judge of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Bank, the Enquiry Officer (S. K. Das), the previous Enquiry Officer (Sri H. K. Maiti) and the Secretary-in-Charge of the Bank were impleaded eo nomine as respondents 1 to 4 in the said contempt petition. The learned Single Judge summoned the enquiry records from the Enquiry Officer. On perusing the records, he was of the view that the Enquiry Officer had not proceeded with due diligence. Therefore, the learned Single Judge made an order dated 20.11.1998, the operative portion of which is extracted below : "1. Let a Rule be issued against the respondent no.2 Sri S. K. Das, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Midnapore I, (charging him ?) with committing contempt of this Court (and ?) for directing him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt. The Respondent no. 2 shall remain present personally on all the dates of hearing in this Court. He shall file his affidavit in opposition within two weeks from today. 2. Since the respondent no. 2 has by his conduct, disqualified himself to be the Enquiry Officer, I direct that he shall cease to be the Enquiry Officer. It shall be open to the respondents, however, in the light of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dismissing the application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently, dismissing the appeal, is challenged in SLP(C) Nos.13045-46 of 2003. 9. On the aforesaid facts and the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration : (i) Where the High Court, in a contempt proceedings, renders a decision on the merits of a dispute between the parties, either by an interlocutory order or final judgment, whether it is appealable under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ? If not, what is the remedy of the person aggrieved ? (ii) Where such a decision on merits, is rendered by an interlocutory order of a learned Single Judge, whether an intra-court appeal is available under clause 15 of the Letters Patent ? (iii) In a contempt proceeding initiated by a delinquent employee (against the Enquiry Officer as also the Chairman and Secretary in-charge of the employer-Bank), complaining of disobedience of an order directing completion of the enquiry in a time bound schedule, whether the court can direct (a) that the employer shall reinstate the employee forthwith; (b) that the employee shall not be prevented from discharging his duties in any man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, there may be many interlocutory orders passed in the said proceeding by the High Court. It could not be the intention of the legislature to provide for an appeal to this Court as a matter of right from each and every such order made by the High Court. The order or the decision must be such that it decides some bone of contention raised before the High Court affecting the right of the party aggrieved. Mere initiation of a proceeding for contempt by the issuance of the notice on the prima facie view that the case is a fit one for drawing up the proceeding, does not decide any question ... It is neither possible, nor advisable, to make an exhaustive list of the type of orders which may be appealable to this Court under Section 19. A final order, surely, will be appealable. If the alleged contemnor in response to the notice appears before the High Court and asks it to drop the proceeding on the ground of its being barred under Section 20 of the Act but the High Court holds that the proceeding is not barred, it may well be that an appeal would lie to this Court under Section 19 from such an order although the proceeding has remained pending in the High Court. We are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The words 'any order' has to be read with the expression 'decision' used in said sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 'Any order' is not independent of the expression 'decision'. They have been put in an alternative form saying 'order' or 'decision'. In either case, it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt. If the expression 'any order' is read independently of the "decision" then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (I) of Section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. It would not be permissible ." 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus : I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. In other words, a judgment can be of three kinds (1) A final Judgment .. (2) A preliminary Judgment .. (3) Intermediary or interlocutory judgment - Most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the Letters Patent and, therefore, appealable. There may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order 43, Rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that, the orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceedings. Before such an order can be a judgment the adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned." " .any discretion exercised or rou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties concerned. This has to be ascertained on the facts of each case." 15. The above principle was reiterated in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh vs. Annabai Devram Kini [2003 (10) SCC 691] and Subal Paul vs. Malina Paul [2003 (10) SCC 361]. In the latter case, this Court held : "While determining the question as regards clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the court is required to see as to whether the order sought to be appealed against is a judgment within the meaning thereof or not. Once it is held that irrespective of the nature of the order, meaning thereby whether interlocutory or final, a judgment has been rendered, clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be attracted. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent confers a right of appeal on a litigant against any judgment passed under any Act unless the same is expressly excluded. Clause 15 may be subject to an Act but when it is not so subject to the special provision the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under clause 15 to entertain any appeal from a judgment would be effective." 16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories : (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. The directions were issued to them and they were the persons aggrieved. 18. The Division Bench, therefore, committed a serious and obvious error in holding that the appeal [MAT 4075/1998] was not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.1998, by which several directions to the Bank with reference to first Respondent were issued, is not a final 'judgment', it is an 'interlocutory judgment' which finally decides several rights and obligations of the employee vis-`-vis the employer and therefore, appealable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Re : Point No. (iii) : 19. As noticed above, by order dated 9.4.1997 in C.O. No.200008(W)/1995, the first inquiry proceedings were set aside and the Chairman of the Bank was directed to appoint an outsider, preferably an officer from the Co-operative Department, as the Enquiry Officer, with a further direction that such Enquiry Officer should conduct the enquiry de novo, and submit the report within four months (from the date of first sitting), and a direction to the first respondent to fully co-operate in the enquiry. The time stipulated for appointment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all be deemed to be in the service of the Bank all through, that the employee shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and that he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. 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. Re : SLP (c) Nos. 13045-46/2003 22. These SLPs. arise out of the order dated 3.9.2001 in MAT No. 1102/2001 filed by the Bank against the order dated 20.11.1998 in CPAN No. 2237/1997. As we have held that the appeal filed by the Chairman and Secretary on behalf of the Bank [MAT No. 4075/1998] against the said order was maintainable, these SLPs. have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
