UNION OF INDIA versus SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 27-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
II 
298 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SA TISH CHANDRA SHARMA 
November 27, 1979 
(V. R. KRISHNA lYER AND R .. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908) Order 39 rule 2 (3)-Suit by 
railway employe~ln injunction application court ordering 
reinstaternenl 
in 
.tervia--Non-compliance by department-Court ordering attachment of depart-
ment property and officers be sa~t to civil jail-Property for artachmmt 
11(>1 
sptdfied, contemner for detenrion not named---$uch order whether valid. 
The respondent a railway employee was proceeded against by the depe.i-t.m&nt 
for misconduct. He did not respond to the 'show-cause' notice issued to bim 
and when the disciplinazy proceeding$ proceeded ex-parte he filed a suiL tor a 
declaration of immunity and permanent injunction against further departmental 
action. He also moved an application for an ad interim injunction to restrain 
the department from affecting his position in service by continuing the discipli-
nary enquiry and to continue to pay his full salary. After bearing, the Mtmaif 
directed that the respondent bo placed in the same position that ho hold trior 
to the commencement of the departmental enquiry in the matter of· pay, 
privileges and all other perquisites that he availed and enjoyed. The depart-
ment appealed against this order, and awaited the decision in the District Court 
before implementing the direction for re-instatement. 
In the meanwhile the respondent filed an application undc:r Order 39 rule 
2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for disobedience of the injunction order. 
The trial court finding that there was non-compliance with the Munsirs .order, 
directed 15 days time for compliance with the said order and on fallure theteof, 
directed that the department shall be visited with the order of attachment of its 
property and its officers be sent to the civil jail. 
An unsuccessful appeal and an unrewarding rewuon was the lot C\f the 
department The High Court made an observation-cum-direction that as the 
Munsif could not proceed with tbe proct'Wings for disobedience of the court's 
order, it would be for the Munsif,concerned to name the officer concerned who 
is required to be sent to jail and to give details of the property to be attached, 
for the purpose of compelling compliance with the court's order. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HElD :1. 1. The High Court was in error in leaving it to the trial court to 
designate the names when it actually issued the ministtrial order to execun. 
its decretal order. Nameless humans cannot be whisked off to prison even~ 
the nam'e of contempt by insertion of the name after the judgment is delivered. 
[304 F] 
_ 2. A government servant of the Union of India who had been removed 
from service for misconduct could not be reinstated with full back pay imme-
diately the order was made by the Court. It had to be communicated to 
~ .... 
' • 
i , 
• 
I 
UNION v. S. C. SHARMA (Krishna lyer, !.) 
2 99 
~arious officers, orders haJ to be made at various levels, flies had to move aud 
notings made for 
gc.~tation before implementation. All this takes time · d 
when the court order ~s ev~ntually effectuated, the salary of the officer ~ill~( 
com~c, have. to be patd wllh effect [rorr; 
the original date of the impugned 
tllfeat of ac/1011 • • To ~roceed ~o ~urusb m haste without pausing to realise how 
sovernment functtons ts not fatr tn this drastic jurisdiction where personal free-
dom is in peril. [305 B·D] . 
3. The constitutional sanctity of liberty and 
protection of 
property will 
become chimerical and the processual law will hang limp if· the substantive 
order is silent and identifying the offender is left over as a ministerial measure. 
[304 F] . 
4. Whero liberty and property are to be deprived it is 
fundamental 
th~t 
vaguencs~ is a fatal vice even if the i">.~uing a-uthority be the court. {302 G} 
Ia the instant case, the orders pa.~cd by the .Mull.';if and the High Court 
keep identity of tbc key persons and properties in uncert3inty. For this rensoq 
;Jane, the order.~ are vulnerable-
against both the att3chment of 
un...peciticd 
property and detention of unnamed contemners.· (30-l C-G1 
5. The law, in tbc area of contempt of court. must avoij' the extremes of 
A 
B 
c 
hyper-reactivity to m~rgin:tl indifference to judicial authority out of pragm:1ti: 
D 
difficulties. 
[300 E} 
6. The nuid, yet valid, concept of 'contempt of ~;curt' keeps juds.:s r.nJa 
rhe rule of law; for 

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