E.T. SUNUP versus C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 13-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

E.T. SUNUP 
A 
v. 
C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 13, 2004 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt: 
Stoppage of all payments except salaries and pensions to employees by 
State Government--Challenged by Employees Associations-Single Judge of C 
High Court directed the State Government to revoke the order-Not complied 
with by the State Government--Contempt Petition-High Court directed State 
Government to lift the ban-Non-compliance-Second Contempt Petition filed 
by the Association and.appeal filed by the Authorities-Appeal dismissed by 
Division Bench of the High Court holding the appellant-officer guilty of flouting D 
the order of the Court, and sentenced him-On appeal, Held: There exist no 
reason as to why the order banning disbursement could not be revoked-An 
administrative Order cannot be revoked by oral submission before the Court-
Officer deliberately circumspect the order of the Court-Hence, he is guilty of 
committing contempt of Court's order-High Court rightly convicted him for 
contempt-However, the officer was having an unblemished service record E 
and was on the verge of retirement and has tendered apology and also the 
order has since been revoked-Hence, fine imposed instead of imprisonment-
Order of the High Court modified accordingly. 
State Government of Nagaland issued orders stopping all payments 
to its employees except salaries and pensions. The orders were challenged F 
by the Respondent, the Employees Association. An interim order was 
passed by the Court allowing withdrawal of GPF. However, the State 
authorities did not comply with the Court's order. A contempt petition 
was filed by the Employees Association. Single Judge of the High Court 
directed the State Government to revoke the order. Appellant-authorities G 
filed an appeal. Since the order was not complied with by the authorities, 
second Contempt Petition was filed by the Association. Division Bench of 
the High Court dismissed the appeal. However, it found the contemnor 
guilty of committing contempt of Court's order and sentenced him to 
413 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A imprisonment for one month. Hence the present appeal by the contemnor. 
It was contended by the appellant-contemnor that the ban does not 
survive since payment of GPF Advance is being allowed by the State 
Government; that the order has been withdrawn and (tis apology may be 
accepted and he be discharged; and that in his long service career of 30 
B years he has never shown any disrespect to Court's order. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order passed by the High Court in the facts and 
circumstances of the case is fully justified. Once an administrative order 
C is issued then it cannot be revoked by oral submission before Court. It 
has to be revoked by another administrative order. If the Advocate 
General had made a statement before the Court then it should have been 
followed with by the administrative order revoking the ban. Till the date 
of argument the appellant.:authority could not produce before this Court 
D the order revoking the ban, on the contrary the ban was kept in force and 
thus second contempt petition was filed by the Employees Association . 
before the Court and the Advocate General again made a statement that 
GPF applications would be processed, that made the matter worse for the 
petitioner and it did not mitigate the situation. It is different that then a 
realization has dawn upon the authorities as they find no escape route for 
r 
E them, therefore, they have then revoked the order. [420-C~FJ 
F 
1.2. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy 
the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fait. The 
executive and the legislature has to work within the Constitutional frame 
work and the judiciary has been given a role of watch dog to keep the 
legislature and the executive within check. In the present case, on the one 
hand the appellant-authority states that all the cases of GPF have been 
processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the 
administrative order. This shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the 
bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. 
G This is clear violation of Court's Order and appellant is guilty of flouting 
the Courts Order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view 
taken by the High Court does not call for interference. 
[420-G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.