9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd why contempt proceedings have been initiated against him. 2. Shri Roshan Lal Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemnor') was appointed as a Draftsman Grade II in the pay scale of ₹ 205-7-240-8-280 in 1964 with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. On 28th June, 1970, he was reduced in rank to the post of Draftsman Grade III in the scale of ₹ 150-5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. The contemnor filed Writ Petition No. 194/70 in the Delhi High Court challenging his reduction in rank. On 16th August, 1974, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge. A Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench on December 3, 1974, Special Leave Petition was preferred in this Court which also failed. The contemnor then sought a review of the order in the special leave petition on two different occasions and both the petitions were dismissed. Though the matter should have ended here, the contemnor filed yet another Writ Petition No. 32/77 under Article 32 of the Constitution once again putting in issue his reduction in rank from Draftsman Grade II to Draftsman Grade III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestioned by him repeatedly before the present Writ petition was filed and on every occasion he lost. We do not see any justification for permitting him to challenge the order once again in the present writ petition. In view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions we cannot also entertain his claims for arrears of salary and other benefits. 3. The Bench also found that the order of dismissal of the contemnor from service on the ground that he had been convicted of a criminal offence which had been made after notice to him did not suffer from any infirmity. The Bench negatived the plea of the contemnor, who was appearing in person, that in view of the observations of this Court at the time of the disposal of the special leave petition, in the criminal case, absolving him of moral turpitude, he could not have been dismissed from service. The Bench observed: It is not possible for us to accept this contention. All that the court said was that it may be that there was no moral turpitude and that may be taken into account for other purposes but so far as the criminal case was concerned the conviction and sentence were correct. We are not prepared to read the observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the observations made by the three-Judge judgment, referred to above, had not been given effect to when the writ petition of 1978 was disposed of. This must be taken as the final order in this proceeding and the Registry would not be justified to entertain any fresh application of the petitioner. Criminal M.P.No. 3564 of 1989 is also disposed of. A separate dissenting judgment was delivered by Ahmadi, J. on 29th April, 1991. The learned Judge found substance in the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and traced the history of the litigation culminating in dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4462/78 on merits by its order dated 20th November, 1986. The learned Judge observed: This Court after taking note of innumerable petitions filed by the petitioner refused to interfere with the order of dismissal nor did it see any reason or justification for grant of any monetary benefits. Yet the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed on the above stated facts. To grant any relief would only encourage multiplicity of proceedings by such litigants. I would, therefore, dismiss the petition. In accordance with the dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrimination, injustice and unfairness to the petitioner-in-person and favourism to the Respondent/UOI by this highest Court of the land while pronouncing a deliberate ill and erroneous judgments in CWP No. 4462/78 on 20.11.1986 and subsequent writ petition No. 946/88 on 7.3.1991 (29.4.1991) with Cr.M.P.; No. 3564/89 in Cr. RP.No. 337 338 of 1985 of the petitioner and limine order of dismissal dated 25.9.1991 in RP 782/91.? VI. will not this be a case of judicial dishonesty, conspiracy and fraud Committed by the Hon'ble Judges through the judgments pronounced in writ petition No. 4462/78 and 946/ 88 with Cr.MP No. 3564/89 in Cr. RP No. 337 338/1985...? 6. In the representation to the President of India, apart from other unfounded and uncalled for aspersions which have the tendency to scandalise this Court in relation to its judicial functions, the petitioner in the very opening paragraph has said; That the Petitioner was a servant with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, has been heavily damaged by the Union of India and subsequently by the Supreme Court of India by its deliberate, fraudulen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake in the offending documents and prated for time to file an affidavit containing unqualified apology. The court granted him time till 5th of May, 1992, which was extended further. Eventually, the contemnor filed a reply to the notice for initiating contempt proceedings against him dated 31.3.1992. After expressing his regret and withdrawing all the objectionable statements in the petition as well as in the letter addressed to the President of India as desired and observed by Your Lordships , the contemnor went on to give an explanation in his reply to the notice. The reply was supported by an affidavit in which the contemnor inter alia averred: The deponent has brought on record of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble President of India his conscientious feelings which this Hon'ble Court considered unreasonable in the deep eyes of law for which the deponent has really regretted as above. On 12th August, 1992, the Bench, after perusal of the reply and the affidavit observed that it did not sound sincere and does not make manifest a realisation on the part of the contemnor of the gravity of his offence . The Bench being of the view that the case may require a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the memorandum of writ petition and the representation to the President of India contain scurrilous and indecent attacks on this Court as well as on the Judges of this Court in intemperate and abusive language is not denied. The contemnor has permitted himself the liberty of using language in the offending documents which not only has the effect of scandalising and lowering the authority of the court in relation to judicial matters but also has the effect of substantially interfering with and obstructing the administration of justice. The unfounded and unwarranted aspersions on the impartiality and ability of the judges of this Court to render justice has the tendency to undermine the authority of the court and create a distrust in the public mind as to the capacity of Judges of this Court to meet out even handed justice. The image and personality of the apex court is an integrated one. The passages in the memorandum of the writ petition and the letter addressed to the President of India attack the integrity and fairness of the Judges. The remarks made by the contemnor are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the Court and besides scandalising the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ystem and the prestige of the court, cannot be permitted for otherwise the very foundation of the judicial system is bound to be undermined and weakened and that would be bad not only for the preservation of Rule of Law but also for the independence of judiciary. Liberty of free expression is not to be confused with a licence to make unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible aspersions against the Judges or the courts in relation to judicial matters. No system of justice can tolerate such an unbridled licence. Of course Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men , but the members of the public have to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice and exercise their right of free criticism without malice or in any way attempting to impair the administration of justice and refrain from making any comment which tends to scandalise the court in relation to judicial matters. 13. The contemnor in the present case let alone showing any remorse or regret has adopted an arrogant and contemptuous attitude. His conduct in circulating the 'no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that he has been deliberately, consistently, persistently and repeatedly making statements which are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of this Court. His attitude is defiant. He has while trying to browbeat the court also attempted to scandalise it in relation to judicial matters is not a case in which the procedure adopted in Sawhnees case (supra) is required to be followed. 15. The aspersions and allegations made by the contemnor in the offending documents,• including the 'note for directions' undoubtedly have the effect of scandalising the court in relation to its judicial functioning and undermining its dignity. They are an affront to the majesty of law. He has permitted himself the liberty of casting aspersions, wholly unjustified and uncalled for, on the integrity and fairness of the Judges of this Court in the discharge of their judicial functions. He has, thereby, attempted to interfere with the administration of justice. The contemnor appears to be addicted to using contemptuous language so as to browbeat the court. We find, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contemnor gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
