Supreme Court

Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. G. Pattanaik and Ors.

MANU/SC/0364/2021

03.06.2021

Contempt of Court

Contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court

Present cases assail the orders issued by the Chief Engineer, pursuant to the judgment of present Court dated 15th November, 2018. This Court by the aforesaid judgment, had directed the Uttar Pradesh, “the Chief Engineer” or “Respondents” to comply with the judgment of the High Court dated 28th November, 2017 in a batch of writ petitions and pass a fresh, reasoned order. In pursuance of the aforementioned decision of this Court, the Chief Engineer issued order dated 4th December, 2018. This order, according to the contempt petitioners, is in the teeth of the decision of this Court dated 15th November, 2018 and, therefore, the Respondents be proceeded for having committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. Thereafter, in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in the aforementioned judgment, the Respondent corporation passed a fresh order dated 2nd March, 2020, annulling the appointment of the Petitioners and similarly placed Assistant Engineers.

It is well¬ established position that, if the termination order is assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, such a grievance can be brought before the constitutional Court including by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950. It is not a question of maintainability of writ petition, but one of exercise of discretion with circumspection in entertaining writ petition under Article 32 in such matters. The High Court can only follow the dictum of this Court which is binding on it.

In view of the text of the orders passed by the High Court and this Court, it was open to the Respondents to issue order (dated 4th December, 2018) to re-engage the Petitioners on the same posts from the date of order and to pay them regular salary month by month thereafter or as and when it would accrue to them. The orders passed by the High Court and this Court, do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the Petitioners with continuity of service and back wages. Instead, the expression used is only “to permit the Petitioners to work on the posts” which were held by them at the time of their termination and “to pay them regular salary month by month” and “as and when the same accrues to them”. Thus, it is not a case of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. It is well settled that contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court.

Since the Respondents have concluded that it was not possible to segregate tainted from the untainted candidates because of the reasons noted in the termination order dated 2nd March, 2020, in law, there was nothing wrong in Respondents issuing the said termination order without affording prior opportunity to the Petitioners and similarly placed persons. Had it been a case of even title of possibility in segregating the tainted from the untainted candidates, which exercise the Respondents were permitted to engage in, in terms of the decision of this Court dated 15th November, 2018, it would have been a different matter. In that case alone, the Petitioners and similarly placed persons could complain of wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 15th November, 2018. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners therein including applicants in intervention/impleadment applications to pursue their remedy before the High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Tags : Direction Disobedience Court’s order

Share :