R.S. SUJATHA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 29-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 227 
R.S. SUJATHA 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9579 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt 
A 
B 
- Employee filed an OA before Tribunal for quashing the 
disciplinary proceedings initiated against her - Opposite party 
C 
raised issue of limitation on the ground that the employee was 
served charge memo at earlier stage and averment made by 
her in that regard was false - Tribunal instead of deciding the 
case on merits or on limitation, held that the appellant was 
guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal o 
- Propriety of the order of Tribunal - Held: The Tribunal ought 
to have framed an issue on limitation and asked the parties 
to lead evidence and decide it on merits - It was totally 
unwarranted and uncalled for to initiate criminal contempt 
proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings taken by 
the opposite parties -
Tribunal failed to appreciate that 
criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature 
and any action on the part of a party by mistake, inadvertence 
or by misunderstanding does not amount to contempt -
Tribunal ought not to have initiated the criminal contempt 
proceedings at such a pre-mature stage making reference to 
the provisions of ss.191, 193 and 197, /PC - Penal Code, 
1860- ss. 191, 193 and 197- Natural justice- Evidence Act, 
1872 - fllustration (f). 
E 
F 
Contempt of Courts Rules, 1992: rr. 7, 13, 15 - Criminal 
G 
contempt - Power of court/tribunal to initiate criminal contempt 
proceedings - Scope of - Held: In contempt proceedings, the 
court/tribunal is the accuser as well as judge of the accusation 
227 
H 
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A -
Therefore, court/tribunal is required to act with great 
circumspection - The proceedings being quasi-criminal in, 
nature, burden and standard of proof required is the same as 
required in criminal cases - The charges have to be framed 
as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved 
s beyond reasonable doubt -
The inquiry/contempt 
proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional 
circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury 
has been committed by a party deliberately to gain some 
beneficial order from the. court - In the instant case, criminal 
c contempt case was neither registered nor numbered 
separately - Charge was not framed by the Tribunal -
Therefore, the contempt proceeding was not conducted in 
conformity with the rules at all - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 
- Natural justice. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 114, Illustration (f) - Held: Any 
document sent by Registered Post is presumed to have been 
received by the addressee in view of the provisions of s.27 of 
the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Illustration (f) of s. 114 of 
the Act, but the presumption is rebuttable - Contempt of 
E Courts Act, 1971 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.27. 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 
appellant for committing certain irregularities. The 
appellant filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative 
F Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the charge memo dated 
30.11.1999 and the subsequent proceedings. She also 
filed an application for condonation of delay. In the O.A., 
the appellant made a specific averment that the charge 
memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 
19.6.2002 when the copy of the same was furnished to 
G her by the Enquiry Officer. The respondent replied that 
the order dated 30.11.1999 was issued to the appellant 
on 2.12.1999 by registered post with acknowledgement 
due. The Tribunal instead of deciding the case on merits 
H 
R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 229 
I 
' 
or on the i~sue of limitati.on held that the appellant had 
A 
committed criminal con~empt, and issued show cause 
notice dated 15.11.2002 to her. The appellant submitted 
a reply to the ~how cau~'e notice contending that she had 
not made any1false statement for the purpose of securing 
the order of condonation of delay and, in fact, the charge 
B 
memo dated130.11.19.99 was served upon her for the first 
I 
• 
time on 19 .•. 2002. She also made a request to summon 
certain gov,ernme'lt records to substantiate her case. The 
Tribunal dlrected;the respondent authorities to produce 
the 
dogumen~s, i.e. 
Inward 
Register, 
Postal c 
Acknow~edgem~nt Due and other relevant documents. 
On 12.12

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