MEHMOOD PRACHA versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 10-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
MEHMOOD PRACHA
v.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2020)
AUGUST 10, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 14, 17 – The Contempt
of Courts (C.A.T) Rules, 1992 – rr. 13, 15 – Contempt Proceedings
– Denial of right to trial by Tribunal – Appellant made certain
submissions in his capacity as the counsel for the party before the
Tribunal – Same were found to be contemptuous by the Tribunal –
Charges were framed – Appellant denied charges – However,
appellant was convicted by the CAT u/s. 14 of the Contempt of the
Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant urged that the Tribunal had erred in
denying the appellant the right to be tried for the charge leveled
against him – Held: On facts, denial of a right of trial which is
contemplated also u/s. 14(1)(c) of the Act as also Rule 15 of the
Rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice – The procedure under
the Act and in the Rules which related to adducing of evidence
when there is a denial of the charge, was not followed – Therefore,
impugned order set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The question, however, which pointedly arises
for consideration of this Court, in the facts of this case, is whether,
after framing a charge, it was necessary that there should be a
trial and whether the charge should be supported with any
evidence. As far as the light shed by Section 14 goes, Section
14(1)(c) appears to indicate that the proceedings include taking
of evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such
person and thereafter, to determine the matter of the charge.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 14 contemplates the situation where
in regard to the Supreme Court or the High Court, the alleged
contemnor seeks to have the matter be heard by another Judge,
in which case, the application is to be allowed if the Court is of
the opinion that it is practical to do so and in the interest of proper
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 20
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
administration of justice. In such eventuality, section 14(3)
contemplates that it shall not be necessary for the Judge or
Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to
have committed to appear as a witness and it is sufficient if the
statement of the judge is placed before the Chief Justice which
is then to be treated as evidence. The Tribunal, by the impugned
order, has only noticed in keeping with the charge that the
appellant did make the statement in the Court that he had
something to say about the Chairman which he wished to
communicate to him in the chamber. This is disputed by the
appellant. The charge indeed is on the lines as found by the
Tribunal. But the charge was denied by the appellant. [Paras 12,
13 & 16][29-G-H; 30-A-C, G-H]
2. Therefore, this is not a case where this Court can proceed
on the basis that the appellant has admitted his guilt to the charge
that appellant made a statement in the open Court that he had
certain things to say about the Chairman which, however, he
would reveal only in the chamber. This is the crux of the matter.
His version is as noticed in the counter affidavit, which he filed
to the charge. It is another matter that this Court may agree with
the view of the Tribunal if the appellant had indeed made the
allegations against the Chairman in the form of an insinuation
that he had something to say about the Chairman which he would
reveal only in chamber and what is more, he maintained silence
which is eloquent when he was called upon to say whatever he
had to say in the open Court. If that were the position, this Court
would have little difficulty in upholding the conviction. [Para
18][31-F-H; 32-A]
3. The appellant denied charges. What is more, he
specifically staked the claim to have a trial conducted on the
charge framed against him. No trial at all was conducted. In other
words, no evidence was taken. The findings have been rendered
after framing of the charge on 10.02.2020. The only day on which
the case stood listed before the pronouncement of the judgment
is 18.03.2020. This Court has noticed all that took place on
18.03.2020. On the said day, different submissions were made.
On the one hand, the Additional Solicitor General told the Tribunal
that the trial may not be necessary in view of the judgment in
MEHMOOD PRACHA v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Leila David. The appellant, on the other hand, joined is

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