LexAJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS. versus PRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1044 : 2024 INSC 575 Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit (Civil Appeal No. 8129-8130 of 2024) 29 July 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi for challenging an order of the DIG (CR&VIG), whereby he was removed from service. The High Court set aside the impugned order; imposed a minor penalty on him; reinstated him without back wages; directed his reinstatement to be dated back to 1995 (when the original order of dismissal was made) for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions; and also directed the Order to be implemented within 8 weeks. When he was not reinstated within time prescribed and was denied promotion to the eligible rank of IG by the time he superannuated, the Respondent initiated contempt proceedings before a Single Judge in the High Court. The Court was of the opinion that there was willful disobedience on the part of the Appellants in complying with the earlier directions issued by the Division Bench. The Appellants went in Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. It was rejected as not maintainable under Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to decide as to when a Letter Patent Appeal lies against an Order of a Single Judge of High Court if such an appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Headnotes† Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 19 – Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 – The position w.r.t. appeals against orders in contempt proceedings – Reiterated: * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1045 Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit Held: Para 11 of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. case sums up the principles in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings, as under:- 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 be in the exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the 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 under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). [Para 13] Letter Patent Appeal – Whether it lies in the facts of the case – Principles laid down in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank 1046 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 applied: Held: Single Judge in his order held that – (1) the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order; (2) the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG; and (3) gave an opportunity to the Appellants “to issue a fresh order granting promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG” to bring
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.