Holding

An administrative order cannot be revoked by oral statements before the court; it must be revoked by a subsequent administrative order, and failure to do so constitutes contempt of court.

Summary

The State Government of Nagaland issued an order stopping all payments to its employees except salaries and pensions, including a ban on withdrawals from the General Provident Fund (GPF). The ban was challenged by the CANSSEA Employees Association, leading the Gauhati High Court to direct the State to lift the ban; the State failed to comply, resulting in contempt proceedings against the Finance Commissioner, E.T. Sunup. The High Court found Sunup guilty of contempt and sentenced him to one month imprisonment and a fine, but later modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.5,000 with default imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that an administrative order cannot be revoked by oral statements before the court and must be revoked by a subsequent administrative order; the State’s failure to produce such an order constituted contempt. Considering the contemnor’s unblemished 30‑year service and the eventual revocation of the ban, the Court imposed only a fine, affirming the High Court’s conviction. The appeal was dismissed with the modified sentence.

Issues considered

Whether an administrative order banning GPF withdrawals can be revoked by oral statements before the court or requires a subsequent administrative order.
Whether the failure to comply with the High Court's order amounts to contempt of court.
What is the appropriate punishment for contempt in view of the contemnor's service record and the subsequent revocation of the ban.

Subjects

contempt of courtadministrative orderrevocationGeneral Provident Fundrule of lawfineimprisonmentexecutive compliance

Judgment

E.T. SUNUP A
v.
C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

OCTOBER 13, 2004

[B.N. AGRAWAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Contempt:

Stoppage of all payments except salaries and pensions to employees by
State Government--Challenged by Employees Associations-Single Judge of C
High Court directed the State Government to revoke the order-Not complied
with by the State Government--Contempt Petition-High Court directed State
Government to lift the ban-Non-compliance-Second Contempt Petition filed
by the Association and.appeal filed by the Authorities-Appeal dismissed by
Division Bench ofthe High Court holding the appellant-officer guilty offlouting D
the order of the Court, and sentenced him-On appeal, Held: There exist no
reason as to why the order banning disbursement could not be revoked-An
administrative Order cannot be revoked by oral submission before the Court-
Officer deliberately circumspect the order of the Court-Hence, he is guilty of
committing contempt of Court's order-High Court rightly convicted him for
contempt-However, the officer was having an unblemished service record E
and was on the verge of retirement and has tendered apology and also the
order has since been revoked-Hence, fine imposed instead of imprisonment-
Order of the High Court modified accordingly.

State Government of Nagaland issued orders stopping all payments
to its employees except salaries and pensions. The orders were challenged F
by the Respondent, the Employees Association. An interim order was
passed by the Court allowing withdrawal of GPF. However, the State
authorities did not comply with the Court's order. A contempt petition
was filed by the Employees Association. Single Judge of the High Court
directed the State Government to revoke the order. Appellant-authorities G
filed an appeal. Since the order was not complied with by the authorities,
second Contempt Petition was filed by the Association. Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the appeal. However, it found the contemnor
guilty of committing contempt of Court's order and sentenced him to
413 H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A imprisonment for one month. Hence the present appeal by the contemnor.

It was contended by the appellant-contemnor that the ban does not
survive since payment of GPF Advance is being allowed by the State
Government; that the order has been withdrawn and (tis apology may be
accepted and he be discharged; and that in his long service career of 30
B years he has never shown any disrespect to Court's order.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The order passed by the High Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case is fully justified. Once an administrative order
C is issued then it cannot be revoked by oral submission before Court. It
has to be revoked by another administrative order. If the Advocate
General had made a statement before the Court then it should have been
followed with by the administrative order revoking the ban. Till the date
of argument the appellant.:authority could not produce before this Court
D the order revoking the ban, on the contrary the ban was kept in force and
thus second contempt petition was filed by the Employees Association .
before the Court and the Advocate General again made a statement that
GPF applications would be processed, that made the matter worse for the
petitioner and it did not mitigate the situation. It is different that then a
realization has dawn upon the authorities as they find no escape route for r

E them, therefore, they have then revoked the order. [420-C~FJ

1.2. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy
the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fait. The
executive and the legislature has to work within the Constitutional frame
work and the judiciary has been given a role of watch dog to keep the
F legislature and the executive within check. In the present case, on the one
hand the appellant-authority states that all the cases of GPF have been
processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the
administrative order. This shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the
bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand.
G This is clear violation of Court's Order and appellant is guilty of flouting
the Courts Order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view
taken by the High Court does not call for interference.
[420-G-H; 421-A-BJ

2. If the Court's Orders are flouted like this, then people would lose
H faith in the Courts. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with such type of
E.T. SUNUP v. C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [A.K. MA THUR, J.] 415

violation of Court's Order with strong hands and to convey to the A
authorities that the Courts are not going to take things lightly. However,
looking into the long career of the Officer and that the order has been
revoked, impugned order is modified by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 on
the incumbent and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. [421-D-E)
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3157 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.98 of the Gauhati High Court
at Assam in C.P. No. 8(K) of 1997.
c
Jagdeep Dhankhar, Devendra Singh, Abani Kumar Sahu, Ghanshyam,
Atul K. Sinha and Dr. Sushil Balwada With him for the Appellant.

P.K. Goswami and Rajiv Mehta with him for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
A.K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by
the Gauhati High Court dated 26th May, 1998 whereby the Division Bench
has convicted Shri E. T. Sunup, Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt.,
Finance Department., Government ofNagaland, and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in E
defauh, further simple imprisonment of one month. However, Respondent
No. 2, A.C.Saikia was impleaded as party in this Contempt Petition but he
was not party in Civil Rule No. 40(K)96 against which this contempt arises,
therefore, he was discharged. More so he stood retired on reaching
superannuation some time in the month of June/July 1997.

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are
as follows. That by a W.T. Message dated 30th December, 1995 the State
Government in the Department of Finance had stopped all payments of the
employees of the State Government except salaries and pensions. The W.T.
Message reads as under:
G
"NO. BUD/1-2/95-96 DTD 30.12.1995(.) STOP ALL STATES GOVT.
PAYMENTS RPT STOP ALL STATE GQVT. PAYMENTS WITH
LIMMEDIATE EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS EXCEPT
SALARIES AND PENSIONS FOR DECEMBER 1995 TO BE PAID
FROM 5.l.96 RPT 5.1.96. ONWARDS(.) NO OTHER PAYMENT H
........
.__
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A RPT NO OTHER PAYMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED EVEN
AGAINST DRA WAL AUTHORITIES ALREADY ISSUED. UNTIL
FURTHER ORDERS (.) PLEASE CONFIRM STRICT
COMPLIANCE (.)"

The a!Jove message was amended on 30th January, 1996 and the ban
B imposed was relaxed with regard to payment of salaries to regular staff,
pension, including arrear of pension, leave encashment and G.I.S. of the
retired Government employees.

Earlier on 29th September, 1994 it was stated that no application for
special relaxation of G.P.F. will be entertained. The message reads as under:
c
"NO. FIN/GEN/39/93 : OT. KMA THE 29th Sept. '94 (.) NO
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL RELAXATION OF G.P.F. WILL
BE ENTERTAINED TILL FINANCIAL POSITION IMPROVES(.)
REQUEST NOT TO FORWARD ANY APPLN. DURING OCT' 94."

D Thereafter the above orders were challenged by the Confederation of
All Nagaland State Services Employees Association ( in short CANSSEA).
CANSSEA filed a Civil Rule 40(K)96 by its General Secretary. The grievance
of the petitioner association was banning of withdrawal of G.P.F. While
issuing a rule returnabl~ within 6 weeks the Court on 17 .5.96 after hearing
E both the parties, passed an interim order which reads as under:

"In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of
submission made at the Bar I am of the view that an interim order has
become necessary. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.12.95
issued by the Finance Department in so far as it concerns withdrawal
F of G.P.F. money shall remain suspended until further orders."

The interim order was not complied with by the respondent. Therefore,
the CANSSA Association filed a contempt petition which came to be registered
as Civil Original (Contempt) Petition No. l 7(k)96 in which the present
contemnor Shri E.T. Sunup, Finance Commissioner, Government ofNagaland,
G Kohima was arrayed as respondent No. 1 and a notice was issued and lie filed
a counter. Since the earlier Civil Rule was complete in all respect, therefore,
both the Civil Rule and Contempt Petition were heard together and they were
accordingly disposed of vide Court's Order dated 25.2.97 and the following
directions were given:

H "14. Having said enough, this petition is disposed with the following
--
E.T. SUNUP v. C.A.NS.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 417

directions:- A
(a) Second respondent is directed to lift the ban with regard to
withdrawal/advance of G.P.F. within a week from the date of
receipt of this order.

(b) The G.P.F. withdrawal/ance shall be allowed only after
Submission of statements with regard to the availability of the B
amount in the credit of the subscriber.
(c) Every Treasury Officer shall, before honouring of withdrawal/
advance of G.P.F. insist that latest statement showing the accounts
in the credit of the subscriber are made available before him.
c
(d) The Accountant General shall see that the latest statements are
issued correctly and on the basis of actual subscription subscribed
by the subscriber.
(e) Every Head of the Department shall also see that before they
forward the application of G.P. Fund withdrawal/advance, the D
latest statement indicating the availability of money in the credit
of the subscriber is made available."

The Orders dated 30th September 1995, 30th January, 1996 and 29th
September, 1994 were quashed, so far as the withdrawal and ance of GPF
was concerned. The contempt petition was also disposed of and it was observed E
by the High Court under Para 4 of the aforesaid order that the contemnor
has made a misleading statement in paragraph 3 of the counter because it has
been categorically stated by the contemnor that impugned W.T. message
dated 30.12.95 was effectively withdrawn However the order of withdrawal
of Ban imposed on 30th December, 1995 was not produced by the contemnor.
While disposing of the contempt petition, the following observations were F
made by the Court.

"This Court has given seven days' time from the date of receipt of
the order to the contemnors to lift the ban imposed on withdrawal/
advance of G.P. Fund on 30.12.95. Contemnors also in paragraph 8
of its counter tender unqualified apology ifthere is some omission of G
commission which might have taken place in giving to the effective
order of the Court. Contemnors also categorically averred that he has
the highest respect f~r this Court and he has no intention of showing
any disregard or disobedience to any order or direction passed by this
, ., .
Court. Whenever the direction of this Court is not carried out to its H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A logical conclusion, it is the Rule of law that suffers. Carrying out the
order of this Court is an enforcement of the Rule of Law. We, therefore,
insist that our order should be carried out to enforce the Rule of Law.
However, although the contempt has been rr.ade out, in view of the
averment made in paragraph 8 of the counter by contemnors tendering
unqualified apology, this Court with great hesitation accept the
B unqualified apology tendered by the contemnor keeping in view that
the Court has already directed the contemnors to lift ban on withdrawal/
advance ofG.P. fund imposed <?n 30.12.95 and 29th September, 1994
passed in Civil Rule 40(K)96."

C Despite the aforesaid order, it was not complied with and, therefore, a
second contempt petition was filed which is the subject matter of the present
Appeal.

It was submitted before the Court that despite leniency shown by the
Court for withdrawing the order within one week, the respondent has
D deliberately and wilfully not abided by the order and flouted the same
thereby bringing the administration of justice into disrespect. A reply was
filed to this Contempt Petition and it was submitted that the copy of the order
was not received by the respondent and therefore it could not be complied
with and he denied that he had violated the order of the Court. It was
submitted that meanwhile an appeal was filed and operation of order was
E stayed by the Division Bench. Therefore, no contempt was committed,
however, an apology was also tendered for omission and commission if any.

An issue with regard to receipt of the Certified copy of order was dealt
with by the Court at length to show that certified copy was delivered in office
F of Finance Commission but it is irrelevant now because impugned order was
stayed by the Division Bench of High Court on 28.5.1997. However, fact
remains that no application was moved for extension of time given by Court
i.e. one week.

Subsequently, the Writ Appeal was also disposed of by the Division
G Bench of the Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 11th March, 2004 and
it was observed as under:

"In view of the discussion, we find no good reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal
with an observation that whatever applications may be pending or
H moved for withdrawals by the subscribers/employees, they shall be
E.T. SUNUP v. C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIAJION [A.K. MATHUR, J.] 419

dealt with in accordance with Rule applicable as contained in the A
General Providen.t.Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960."
'
A statement was made before the Division Bench by the Advocate-
General that he is authorized to make a statement that now no ban is there
against withdrawal of amount by the employees from their Provident Fund
accounts. However, the order of the Single Judge Bench was affirmed by B
Division Bench. The learned counsel for the appellant Si!bmitted that there
was no ban in reality because provident fund amount was released from time
to time, and in support of it he drew our attention to Annexure- 'G' showing
GPF Receipts and Disbursements in the year 1996-97. Accordi.ngly, total
receipt towards GPF was Rs. 67.36 crore and disbursement was Rs. 25.29 C
crore. The amount of Rs. 25.29 crore was .disbursed after the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. However, learned counsel for appellant was
unable to point out at the time of argument whether administrative order
passed by authorities was revoked or not. But subsequently he filed an
affidavit of Mr. E.T. Sunup, the then Finance Commissioner that Govt. now
on 23.9.2004 has withdrawn the Order. The order reads as under:- !D
"In compliance to the Honourable Gawahati High Court orders dated
2.5.2.97 in Civil Rule 40(k)/96 and dated l l.3.99 in writ appeal No. 262/
97, the following orders of the State Govt., given by the Finance
Department, in so far relating to advances and withdrawals of G.P.F.
by the State government employees, that were quashed by the Hon'ble E
Gawahati High Court, are hereby being revoked with immediate effect:

(i) NO. FIN/GEN/39/93 OF 29.9.1994

(ii) NO. BUS/1-2/95-96 OF 30.12.1995 AND

(iii) WIT message of30.l.l996
F

(H. KHULU) IAS

Finance Commissioner"

(But this administrative order was issued after close of arguments.) He G
also submitted that subsequently a similar ban was imposed and a contempt
Petition 5/99 was filed in the Gauhati High Court and the Hon'ble Court on
14th March, 2000 set aside the impugned order and directed that whatever
applications were pending or moved for withdrawal by the subscribers/
employees be dealt with in accordance with Rules. The contempt petition was H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A thereafter disposed of.
Learned Counsel submitted that on account of subsequent event now
the ban does not survive and GPF is being disbursed and order has been
withdrawn, appellant's apology be accepted and he be discharged. He submitted
that appellant has put in long 30 years of service and he has never shown
B any disrespect to Court's order. Learned counsel for the respondent supported
the order of the High Court.

We have heard both the learned counsel at length. We are of the
opinion that the present order passed by the High Court in the facts and
C circumstances of the case is fully justified. Once a stand was taken by the
Advocate General that the ban does not survive and amount of GPF was
disbursed during the period 1996-97, then there was no reason why the order
banning of disbursement of GPF was not revoked The stand taken by the
State on one hand that amount of GPF was disbursed still they were not
prepared to revoke the order, we fail to understand this inconsistant stand.
D Once the administrative order is issued then it cannot be revoked by oral
submission before Court. It has to be revoked by another administrative order
(which they have now passed). If the Advocate General had made a statement
before the Court then it should have been followed with the administrative
order revoking the ban. Till the date of argument learned counsel for the
appellant could not produce before us the order revoking the ban, on the
E contrary the ban was keptin force and the second contempt petition was filed
before the Court and the Advocate General again made a statement that GPF
applications will be processed that makes the matter worse for the petitioner
and it does not mitigate the situation. It is different that now a realization has
dawn upon the authorities as they find no escape route for them, therefore,
p they have now revoked the order dated 25.2.1997 by the Order dated 23.9.2004
after close of arguments.

It has become a tendency with the Government Officer to somehow or
the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one
justification or ot~er. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the
G orders of the Court. This tendency of undennining the court's order cannot
be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy
the role of the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fait. The
executive and legislature has to work within Constitutional frame work and the
judiciary has been given a role of watch dog to keep the legislature and
H executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter
E.T. SUNUP v. C.A.N.S.S. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [A.K. MATHUR, J.) 421

filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the A
cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not
prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate
attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court
and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of Court's Order and appellant
is guilty of flouting the Court.s Order.
B
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High
Court does not call for interference.

While coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the incumbent is on the verge of retirement and he C
has suffered a lot and he has an unblemished career of 30 years of service.
More so now Order dated 25.2.1997 has been revoked though belated therefore
a mercy be shown to him and his apology may be accepted. But ifthe Court's
orders are' flouted like this, then people will lose faith in the Courts. Therefqre,
it is necessary to deal with such type of violation of Court's Order with strong
hands and to convey to the authorities that the Courts are not going to take D
things lightly. However, looking to the long career of this Officer and now
order has been revoked, we do not propose to punish him with imprisonment
but we propose to impose a fine of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand ) only
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo a simple imprisonment for one
month. The incumbent shall deposit the amount in the State Treasury witliin
one month from today. E
Hence, as a result we affirm the order of the High Court and punish
the respondent No. 1 for committing contempt of Courts Order and impose
a fine of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) only, in default of payment of
fine, sentence him simple imprisonment for one month. The impugned order F
is modified to this extant. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. :

S.K.S. Appeal disposed of.