By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JAN 12, 2014: THE issues before the Division Bench are - Whether repeated defiance of Court order amounts to contempt of Court and Whether when the appellant is suspended on certain charges, the period for which the appellant is without any work, should be construed as punishment. And the verdict goes against the appellant.

Facts of the case

The appellant is an IRS officer. He has been making scurrilous allegations and using derogatory language against the respondents, who are officers of the Indian Revenue Service. The appellant was suspended on 30.03.2007 on the ground of indiscipline for having made unscrupulous remarks against the officers of DGIT (Vigilance) and Chief Vigilance Officer. The said officers were dealing with a vigilance matter against the appellant wherein a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had been issued to the appellant. On 26.09.2007, a second charge sheet was issued for administrative misconduct for casting aspersions on the character and conduct of lady officers. The appellant was suspended with effect from 08.11.2007 by an order dated 22.10.2009. Against the suspension order the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the suspension order issued by the CBDT. In the said petition the appellant had made vulgar and scandalous allegations against the respondents while accusing them of having caused a loss of Rs 100 crores. The said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 31.05.2010 and the suspension order was quashed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal the respondents preferred a writ petition before this Court. By an order dated 07.10.2010 a Division Bench of this Court expunged the disparaging pleadings inter se the appellant and the respondents. The appellant on 27.01.2011 sent a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax with copies to Chairman, CBDT of the Income Tax Department as well as to the CIT (Vigilance) in which, amongst other allegations, there were also some obnoxious and denigrating statements made against the respondents. The respondents had filed a complaint against the appellant alleging sexual harassment by the appellant. As no action was taken on the said complaint filed with the Income Tax Department, the respondents preferred another writ petition. In the said writ petition, a Single Judge passed an order dated 01.03.2011 whereby the appellant was restrained from writing any letter containing allegations similar to those contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011 and further direction was also issued to the Department to ensure that no such communications are distributed within the organization.

The operation of the interim order dated 01.03.2011 was continued on 20.04.2011. The appellant, despite the interim order, sent an offending communication on 06.05.2011 to the Chairman, CBDT which also contained scurrilous statements against the respondents. The said action of the appellant led the respondents to file a contempt petition before the Single judge. Thereafter the appellant tendered an unqualified apology stating that the letter dated 06.05.2011 had been written in a state of emotional turmoil and submitted that he would neither in present nor in future write any letter or any other form of communication in terms of the order dated 01.03.2011. The Court recorded the statement and the unconditional apology of the appellant and disposed of the contempt petition by an order dated 29.09.2011.

However, on 02.04.2012 the appellant once again sent a letter containing language and allegations similar to the ones contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011. The letter dated 02.04.2012 was followed by letters dated 10.04.2012 and 16.04.2012 addressed to Sh. K.C. Jain, CIT which were also in a similar vein. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed another contempt petition bringing the said letters to the notice of the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge by an order dated 31.07.2012 injuncted the appellant from addressing any communication to any third person in which there was a reference of the respondents in the manner as contained in the letter dated 02.04.2012.

The appellant herein filed appeal against the order dated 31.07.2012, however, the same was withdrawn on 17.09.2012. In the course of hearing held on 18.10.2012 before the Single Judge, the counsel for the respondents placed on record another communication dated 01.08.2012 addressed by the appellant to Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Bhuvneshwar, Orissa wherein similar unacceptable, offensive and obnoxious statements regarding the respondents had been made. This communication provided fresh cause to the respondents under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and notice was issued to the appellant. Thereafter, communications dated 22.10.2012 and 20.12.2012 containing similar offending statements were sent to the Finance Minister and to the Commissioner of Delhi Police by the wife of the appellant.

In the meanwhile the appellant had also filed a writ petition wherein, inter alia, prayers had been made to transfer/remove the respondents from the office of the Union of India. It is important to note that in the said writ petition the appellant, once again, made averments that were denigrating the respondents. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the appellant, however, the Single Judge directed the Registry to tag the said writ petition along with the contempt petition.

The learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty of wilfully and consciously violating Court orders dated 01.03.2011, 29.09.2011 and 31.07.2012 passed in W.P. (C) 1373/2011, Cont. Cas. 360/2011 and Cont. Cas 330/2012, respectively and passed the impugned order imposing a punishment of civil imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days alongwith a fine of Rs 2000 on the appellant for violating/disobeying the restraint order.

The appellant filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order. On 16.01.2013, when the present appeal was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench of this court, the counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was going through some psychological trauma and suggested that the appellant be examined by a psychologist who would submit a report to this Court. It was further submitted that the appellant was willing to get himself admitted to the Vidyasagar Institute for Mental Health, Neuro and Allied Sciences ( VIMHANS). Accordingly, the Division Bench passed an order directing the Director of VIMHANS to send a report regarding the appellant, after his medical check-up, in a sealed cover to the Court for its perusal. The report in respect of the appellant was received in a sealed cover from VIMHANS and was perused by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.03.2013. As there were serious issues arising from the report the Court issued interim directions that (i) no communication addressed by the appellant qua any issue should be given any cognizance or be taken into consideration. (ii) the appellant should not be entrusted with any work in the Department as it may affect the public at large. After perusal of the report it was put back in a sealed cover and the report was kept in the custody of the concerned Deputy Registrar.

Against the order dated 01.03.2013 the appellant filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 10521-10522/2013 which was taken up by the Supreme Court on 13.03.2013 and was disposed of with a direction that the report regarding the appellant received from VIMHANS be made available to the counsel for the appellant before 18.03.2013 for perusal and for making submissions.

The Department had also submitted that the performance of the appellant on duty had not been satisfactory and had informed the Court that vide office order No.45 of 2013 dated 06.03.2013 the appellant had been put on compulsory wait.

During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant informed this court that the appellant had initiated proceedings against the doctors of VIMHANS who had submitted the report, before the Medical Council and in those proceedings the said doctors had retracted their findings as submitted in their report to this Court.

Having heard the parties, the HC held that,

++ Mr Jethmalani, the senior counsel appearing for the appellant has raised several contentions. First of all, he has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in proceeding on the basis that the appellant was guilty of violating the order dated 01.03.2011 as that was an interim order passed in W.P.(C) 1373/2011 which was disposed of on 21.07.2011. It is contended that the order dated 01.03.2011 being an interim order ceased to exist on the disposal of the writ petition on 21.07.2001 and thus, there was no question of the appellant being found guilty of violating an order that was inoperative. The learned counsel also pointed out that the letter which was held to be contumacious was a letter dated 06.05.2011 which was subject matter of Cont. Cas No. 360/2011. The said contempt petition against the appellant, was also disposed of by an order dated 29.09.2011, wherein it was observed that the "contempt stands purged". It is further urged that the learned Single Judge erred in proceeding on the basis that there was any violation of the order dated 29.09.2011, since the operative part of that order was only to discharge the show cause notice issued to the appellant and no further direction could be read in the said order. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. DHC: (2012) 4 SCC 307 in support of the contention that an interim order merges in the final order after it is passed. The learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the appellant is guilty of repeatedly disobeying the orders and wilfully defying the orders of the Court. It is contended that the conclusion is wholly erroneous in view of the fact that the order dated 01.03.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 1373/2011 was no longer operative as the writ petition had been disposed of and further any allegation of contempt on account of the letter dated 06.05.2011 sent by the appellant also did not survive in view of the fact that a learned Single Judge of this Court had already recorded in the order dated 29.09.2011 that the contempt stands purged and had discharged the show cause notice issued to the appellant in respect of the said letter dated 06.05.2011. It is further contended that since the order dated 29.09.2011 contained no further directions, no proceedings for contempt of the said order could possibly lie;

++ the above contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is completely devoid of any merit. The appellant had sent a letter dated 21.07.2011 to the Commissioner of Income Tax and copies of the same were sent to the Chairman, CBDT as well as to CIT (Vigilance). Indisputably, the said letter contained vulgar and scandalous allegations against the respondents;

++ a Single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 01.03.2011 restraining the appellant from issuing any communication similar to the abovementioned letter dated 27.01.2011. A reading of the said letter indicates that the allegations made against the respondents were denigrating and vulgar and undoubtedly with the object of humiliating the respondents. The import of the order dated 01.03.2011 was to clearly restrain the appellant from making vulgar and scurrilous allegations against the respondents so as to protect the dignity of the said officers from being sullied by any wanton allegation such as those contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011. The said order was violated by the appellant by addressing a communication dated 06.05.2011. The contention that this letter was not contumacious as the order dated 01.03.2011 was an interim order and ceased to be operative on disposal of the W.P.(C) 1373/2011 is misconceived as the said writ was disposed of on 21.07.2011 and as on 06.05.2011, the order dated 01.03.2011 was undisputedly in force;

++ the extract from the communication dated 06.05.2011 indicates that the appellant had made allegations and used disparaging language that were interdicted by the order dated 01.03.2011. This communication constituted wilful defiance of the order dated 01.03.2011 and the respondents were constrained to file a contempt case being Cont. Cas(C) 360/2011. The issue whether the said letter was contumacious or not is no longer in dispute as the appellant accepted the same and tendered an unqualified and unconditional apology which was recorded in the order dated 29.09.2011 passed in Cont.Cas (C) 360/2011;

++ the above statement clearly indicates that the appellant represented before the Single Judge that he had no intention either in the present or in the future to write any letter or any other form of communication which were in the same vein and contained similar language and allegations as those contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011. In view of the statement made by the appellant, we are unable to accept the contention that the subsequent communications containing scurrilous and vulgar allegations similar to those as contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011 are not contumacious. However, any little doubt that one may have would also not survive in view of the order that was passed by the Single Judge while accepting the apology tendered by the appellant on 29.09.2011;

++ after being discharged of the contempt proceedings the appellant addressed yet another letter on 02.04.2012 which again contained scurrilous allegations similar to those made by the appellant earlier. The language and the allegations in the letter dated 02.04.2012 were as obnoxious, if not more, as in the earlier letters. This letter was further followed by a letter dated 10.04.2012 addressed to Sh K.C. Jain, CIT which again contained vulgar and offensive allegations. These letters were apparently contumacious and accordingly, the respondent preferred the second Contempt petition- Cont. Cas (C) 330/2012, inter alia praying for initiation of proceedings for contempt of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed in Cont. Cas (C) 360/2011;

++ we are in no doubt that the conduct of the appellant in sending the abovementioned letters amounts to wilful defiance of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Single Judge. The appellant after tendering an apology and after recording his statement that he had no intention of repeating the allegations as contained in the letter dated 27.01.2011 and 06.05.2011 wilfully and in defiance of the orders of this Court proceeded to send the above referred letters. We concur with the view of the Single Judge that the contumacious conduct of the appellant cannot be countenanced. This was a second instance of the contumacious conduct, the first being the letter dated 06.05.2011;

++ we are unable to accept the contention that the order dated 29.09.2011 did not restrain the appellant from addressing communications containing obnoxious and opprobrious allegations against the respondents. The entire basis of the order discharging the show cause notice against the appellant was the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and his statement that he had no intention to send any similar contumacious communications in future. The contention that the appellant was not bound by his statement on the basis of which he had obtained a discharge from the contempt proceedings cannot be accepted;

++ as the further course of events indicate, the contumacious conduct of the appellant did not cease even after the respondents filed the second contempt petition;

++ in the present case, there is little doubt that the appellant has repeatedly disobeyed the orders of the court and thus, deprived the respondents from the benefit of the orders passed in their favour and at their instance. There can be no two opinions that the conduct of the appellant substantially interfered with the course of justice. In our view, the Single Judge was correct in imposing punishment for the contumacious conduct of the appellant;

++ it is relevant to note that when the present appeal was taken up for hearing on 16.01.2013, apparently, a suggestion was made by the Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was not medically fit and an explanation for his conduct was sought to be given on this basis. The counsel appearing for the appellant had further submitted that the appellant was willing to undergo an examination at VIMHANS. This was, obviously, to substantiate the contention that the appellant‟s action was not that of a sound person. The events that have transpired indicate that doctors at VIMHANS also did not find the appellant medically fit. The natural corollary to that was that the appellant could not be expected to discharge his official functions. The report given by the doctors is stated to have been challenged and it is now asserted that the appellant is medically fit. Apparently, the doctors have, pursuant to a complaint instituted by the appellant, withdrawn their earlier finding with respect to the mental ill health of the appellant;

++ we are of the view that this controversy need not detain us any further. The question about the medical fitness of the appellant had arisen on account of the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, apparently to suggest that the appellant could not be held responsible for his conduct. Since now it is asserted that the appellant is not suffering from any mental disorder, we have heard the present matter and are proceeding on the basis that the appellant is fully responsible for his actions. However, we are unable to accept that the period for which the appellant has been without work, should be considered as a punitive measure against the appellant. The directions passed by this Court on 16.01.2013 were as a consequence of the submissions made before this Court on behalf of the appellant. The said directions were not passed by this Court to impose any punishment on the appellant and cannot be considered as such;

++ we have no doubt that there is no remorse or regret on the part of the appellant with respect to his contumacious conduct. The apology tendered by the appellant before the Single Judge is neither sincere nor an act of penitence or regret and above all not bonafide. In view of the foregoing, we concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge and find no reason to interfere with the same.

(See 2014-TIOL-48-HC-DEL-CONTEMPT)