GURMINDER SINGH KANG versus SHIV PRASAD SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 07-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 240 
GURMINDER SINGH KANG 
v. 
SHIV PRASAD SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 7, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court: 
Contempt of order of High Court -
Appellant-
Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, canceling the time 
bound promotions granted to respondent-employee by orders 
of High Court -
High Court holding that the appellant 
D committed contempt of its order, imposed upon him 
punishment of 2 months' simple imprisonment with fine - Held: 
Orders and judgments of courts are meant to be obeyed and 
not to be disobeyed, with impunity - Appellant came forward 
with a lame and flippant statement that he did not understand 
E the implication of the order of High Court - He passed orders 
in total derogation of the directions contained in the orders of 
High Court - In the circumstances, the order of High Court 
does not call for interference - However, taking into account 
the age of appellant and th~ remorse conduct displayed by 
him, the punishment of imprisonment need not be retained 
F - Instead, a "stern warning" is imposed apart from confirming 
the imposition of fine - Service law. 
Respondent No. 1, who was dismissed from service, 
was, by order dated 28.2.1980, reappointed at the starting 
G basic pay of Rs.2961- with a condition that he would not 
be entitled to any future promotions. Subsequently, he 
filed a writ petition claiming that he be accorded time 
bound promotion as per the State Government's scheme. 
H 
240 
GURMINDER SINGH KANG v. SHIV PRASAD SINGH 241 
The High Court held that the employee could not be 
A 
denied the benefit of the time bound promotion scheme 
and, by its order dated 21.8.1995, disposed of the writ 
petition directing the Commissioner, Food and Civil 
Supplies to decide the representation by a reasoned 
order. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 was granted two 
B 
time bound promotions, the first from 1.4.1981 and the 
second from 9.9.1992. However, the appellant, by his 
order dated 25. 7 .2003, held that the time bound 
promotions granted to respondent no. 1 were contrary to 
reappointment order dated 28.2.1980. His pre-revised pay c 
of Rs.296/- was fixed at the lowest of corresponding 
revised scale of pay, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the excess 
payment was directed to be recovered. In the writ petition 
filed by respondent no. 1, the High Court held that the 
conduct of the appellant in passing the order dated 
0 
25.7.2003 in violation of the specific order of the High 
Court passed in the earlier writ petition on 21.8.1995, 
amounted to contempt of the order of the High Court. It, 
therefore, imposed upon the appellant punishment of 2 
months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Orders and judgments of courts are meant 
to be obeyed and not to be disobeyed, with impunity. 
The appellant, a senior level l.A.S. Officer with not less 
F 
than 30 years of experience in the State Administration 
came forward with a lame and flippant statement that he 
did not understand the implication of the order of the 
High Court which led him to pass such orders in total 
derogation of the directions contained in the orders of the 
G 
High Court.From perusal of the order dated 21.8.1995, it 
is evident that the High Court, though was conscious of 
the reappointment order dated 28.2.1980, which was 
subject to the condition that the employee would not be 
entitled to any promotions, took the view that irrespective 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A of the said condition, having regard to the time bound 
promotions provided for under separate schemes 
announced by the State Government, he could not be 
denied the benefit arising therefrom. It was with that 
specific observation, the authority concerned, namely, the 
B Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies was directed to 
dispose of the employee's representation by reasoned 
order by fixing a time limit. The order dated 21.8.1995 had 
also become final and conclusive. If the appellant had any 
doubt, he should have approached the High Court and 
c sought for proper clarifications. Even thereafter when the 
said employee filed the writ petition, the appellant ought 
to have rectified his mistake and displayed his remorse 
conduct by complying with the directions of the High 
Court. Instead, the appellant appeared to have attempted 
D to justify his action. [Para 9-10] [246-D-G; 2

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