GURMINDER SINGH KANGversusSHIV PRASAD SINGH & ORS.

                       [2012] 11 S.C.R. 240


A                  GURMINDER SINGH KANG
                                 v.
                 SHIV PRASAD SINGH & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2012)

                       DECEMBER 7, 2012
B
            [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                   IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        Contempt of Court:
c
       Contempt of order of High Court - Appellant-
  Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies, canceling the time
  bound promotions granted to respondent-employee by orders
  of High Court - High Court holding that the appellant
D committed contempt of its order, imposed upon him
  punishment of 2 months' simple imprisonment with fine - Held:
  Orders and judgments of courts are meant to be obeyed and
  not to be disobeyed, with impunity - Appellant came forward
  with a lame and flippant statement that he did not understand
E the implication of the order of High Court - He passed orders
  in total derogation of the directions contained in the orders of
  High Court - In the circumstances, the order of High Court
  does not call for interference - However, taking into account
  the age of appellant and th~ remorse conduct displayed by
  him, the punishment of imprisonment need not be retained
F - Instead, a "stern warning" is imposed apart from confirming
  the imposition of fine - Service law.

       Respondent No. 1, who was dismissed from service,
  was, by order dated 28.2.1980, reappointed at the starting
G basic pay of Rs.2961- with a condition that he would not
  be entitled to any future promotions. Subsequently, he
  filed a writ petition claiming that he be accorded time
  bound promotion as per the State Government's scheme.

H                                240
 GURMINDER SINGH KANG v. SHIV PRASAD SINGH 241

The High Court held that the employee could not be            A
denied the benefit of the time bound promotion scheme
and, by its order dated 21.8.1995, disposed of the writ
petition directing the Commissioner, Food and Civil
Supplies to decide the representation by a reasoned
order. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 was granted two          B
time bound promotions, the first from 1.4.1981 and the
second from 9.9.1992. However, the appellant, by his
order dated 25. 7 .2003, held that the time bound
promotions granted to respondent no. 1 were contrary to
reappointment order dated 28.2.1980. His pre-revised pay      c
of Rs.296/- was fixed at the lowest of corresponding
revised scale of pay, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the excess
payment was directed to be recovered. In the writ petition
filed by respondent no. 1, the High Court held that the
conduct of the appellant in passing the order dated           0
25.7.2003 in violation of the specific order of the High
Court passed in the earlier writ petition on 21.8.1995,
amounted to contempt of the order of the High Court. It,
therefore, imposed upon the appellant punishment of 2
months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-.
                                                              E
    Disposing of the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 Orders and judgments of courts are meant
to be obeyed and not to be disobeyed, with impunity.
The appellant, a senior level l.A.S. Officer with not less    F
than 30 years of experience in the State Administration
came forward with a lame and flippant statement that he
did not understand the implication of the order of the
High Court which led him to pass such orders in total
derogation of the directions contained in the orders of the   G
High Court.From perusal of the order dated 21.8.1995, it
is evident that the High Court, though was conscious of
the reappointment order dated 28.2.1980, which was
subject to the condition that the employee would not be
entitled to any promotions, took the view that irrespective   H
    242     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A of the said condition, having regard to the time bound
  promotions provided for under separate schemes
  announced by the State Government, he could not be
  denied the benefit arising therefrom. It was with that
  specific observation, the authority concerned, namely, the
B Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies was directed to
  dispose of the employee's representation by reasoned
  order by fixing a time limit. The order dated 21.8.1995 had
  also become final and conclusive. If the appellant had any
  doubt, he should have approached the High Court and
c sought for proper clarifications. Even thereafter when the
  said employee filed the writ petition, the appellant ought
  to have rectified his mistake and displayed his remorse
  conduct by complying with the directions of the High
  Court. Instead, the appellant appeared to have attempted
D to justify his action. [Para 9-10] [246-D-G; 247-B-D-E-G]

      1.2 Therefore, this Court holds that the o~der of the
  High Court that the appellant committed contempt of its
  order dated 21.08.1995 does not call for interference.
  However, taking into account the age of the appellant,
E who has retired from service, as well as the remorse
  conduct displayed before this Court, the simple
  imprisonment of two months alone need not be retained.
  However, this Court imposes a "stern warning" to be
  recorded as against the appellant apart from confirming
F the imposition of fine as per order of the High Court.
  (Para 12] (248-C-D]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8819 Of 2012.
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 22.03.2004 of the High
    Court of Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 9019 of 2013.

       Anurag Kumar, Sudama Ojha, Dr. Maya Rao for the
    Appellant.
H
GURMINDER SINGH KANG v. SHIV PRASAD SINGH 243

   Gopal Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Chandan Kumar for the                     A
Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Leave
granted.                                                                  B

      2. This civil appeal arises out of the order dated 22.3.2004
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC
No.9019/2003 by which the appellant herein was found guilty
of contempt of its order dated 21.8.1995 passed in CWJC                   c
No.4369/1994. While convicting him for contempt, the learned
Judge imposed simple imprisonment of two months apart from
a fine of Rs.2000/-. The order was, however, suspended for a
period of four weeks to enable the appellant to approach this
Court. Notice was issued by this Court in the Special Leave               0
Petition on 15.4.2004 and the impugned order of the High Court
was also stayed.
      3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that this Court
by order dated 11.09.2009 dismissed the Special Leave
Petition as against respondent No.1 as the petitioner failed to           E
file application for substituted service in regard to respondent
No.1.

     4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the F
order impugned in this appeal. To briefly state the facts, one
Shiv Prasad Singh who was In-charge Block Supply Officer of
Aurangabad was dismissed from service in the year 1977 on
charges of bribery, by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur
Division, Ranchi. Subsequently, considering his representation, G
he was reappointed by memo No.1471 dated 28.2.1980. While
reappointing him, the said order mentioned that Shri Shiv
Prasad Singh would get the basic starting pay of Rs.296/- and
will not be entitled for any future promotions. The said order
became final and Shiv Prasad Singh was reappointed as per H
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 11 S.C.R.

A order dated 28.2.1980. The said Shiv Prasad Singh filed
  CWJC 4369 of 1994 wherein he prayed for a direction to
  accord time bound promotion as per the State Government's
  scheme. Irrespective of the specific directions contained in
  reappointment order dated 28.2.1980, the said writ petition was
B disposed of by order dated 21.8.95. The said order was to the
  following effect:-

                  "lt is no doubt that the order as contained in annexure
          '1' was passed in the year 1980 and the petitioner did not
          assail the same in any Court of law since then, but in my
c         opinion when the Government introduced the scheme of
          time bound promotion, he can not be denied the benefit
          arising therefrom only on account of the impugned order
          (annexure 1) if he is otherwise eligible and found suitable.
          However, it has rightly been pointed out by the learned
D         standing counsel that as the representation of the petitioner
          is still pending before the Commissioner, Food and Civil
          Supply, Govt. of Bihar (respondent No.2) be directed to
          dispose of the same.

E                Accordingly, after having heard the learned counsel
          for the parties, the writ application is disposed of with the
          direction to the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies,
          Government of Bihar (respondent N0.2) to dispose of the
          representation of the petitioner by a reasoned order within
F         three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
          of this order, the certified copy of which shall be produced
          along with the copy of the said representation before
          respondent No.2 by the petitioner within two weeks."
       5. Pursuant to the said order Shiv Prasad Singh was
G granted first time bound promotion from 01.04.1981 and
  second time bound promotion from 09.09.92. His salary was
  fixed in the revised scale of Rs.5500-9000. The appellant
  herein by his order dated 25.7.2003 in his capacity as the
  Commissioner Food and Supplies and Commerce,
H Government of Bihar held that the grant of time bound promotion
GURMINDER SINGH KANG v. SHIV PRASAD SINGH 245
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
one on 01.04.1981 and other on 09.09.1992 were in                      A
contravention of the conditions contained in the reappointment
order dated 28.2.1980 and so saying cancelled the said
promotions. The salary was also fixed in the pre-revised scale
of Rs.296/-. The corresponding revised scale was stated to be
Rs.5000-8000/-.                                                        B

     6. Consequent to the said orders dated 25. 7 .2003
necessary orders revising salary in the lowest scale of
Rs.5000-8000/- was fixed from 01.01.1996 and the excess
payment was also directed to be recovered from him.                    C
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.7.2003, the said Shiv Prasad
Singh filed a writ petition namely, CWJC No. 9019 of 2003.
While examining the grievances in the Writ Petition of Shiv
Prasad Singh the learned Judge of the Patna High Court took
the view that the order passed by the appellant dated 25.7.2003
was in violation of the specific orders passed in CWJC 4369            D
of 1994 dated 21.8.1995 and directed the appellant to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter,
the appellant stated to have filed his reply and not being satisfied
with the stand taken by the appellant, the learned Judge
concluded that the conduct of the appellant in having passed           E
the order dated 25.7.2003 was in violation of the order dated
21.8.1995 and, therefore, the said conduct of the appellant
amounted to contempt of the order of the Court. On the above
said basis, the learned Judge ultimately imposed the
punishment of two months' simple imprisonment apart from               F
payment of fine of Rs.2000/-.

     7. We heard Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant who strenuously contended that the appellant could
not understand the implication of the order dated 21.8.95 in the       G
proper perspective when he passed the order dated 25.7.2003
and that in any event since he has tendered an unconditional
apology he should be dealt with leniently.

     8. While entertaining this appeal, the appellant was
directed to be present in Court. Accordingly, he also appeared         H
    246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A before us on 8.10.12. It was submitted before us by the learned
  counsel for the appellant that the appellant retired as Chief
  Secretary of State of Bihar and that he regrets for whatever had
  happened in passing the order dated 25.7.2003 and that he
  did not intend to violate the orders of the Court. The learned
B counsel, therefore, contended that considering the age of the
  contemnor and having regard to the remorse conduct
  displayed, he may be dealt with leniently.

        9. Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge
  who has con&'ldered the matter in extenso, we find that the
C conclusions of the learned Judge in having held that the stand
  of the appellant that he was not able to understand the spirit of
  the order in the proper perspective cannot be accepted, was
  well justified. The appellant was a senior IAS officer and it was
  found that he had nearly 30 years of experience as an officer
D in the administrative service. When we peruse order dated
  21.8.95, we find that the High Court, though was conscious of
  the conditions contained in the reappointment order dated
  28.2.80, took the view that irrespective of the said condition,
  namely, that the order of reappointment was subject to the
E condition that Shiv Prasad Singh would not be entitled for any
  promotions, however, found that having regard to the time
  bound promotions provided for under separate schemes
  announced by the State Government, any such condition in the
  order dated 28.2.80 would not operate against the detriment
F of the said employee, namely, Shiv Prasad Singh. That such
  conclusion has been clearly set out in the order which has been
  extracted by us in the earlier part of this order. It was with that
  specific observation the authority concerned, namely, the
  Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply of Governmertt of Bihar
G was directed to dispose of the employee's representation by
  reasoned order by fixing a time limit. The order dated 21.8.95
  had also become final and conclusive. Pursuant to the said
  order when the then Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies
  Government of Bihar passed orders, granting the first time
H bound promotion from 1.4.81 and second time bound
GURMINDER SINGH KANG v. SHIV PRASAD SINGH 247
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
promotion from 9.9.92 and by fixing the salary of the employee      A
concerned in the proper scale, even assuming the appellant
who was stated to have been subsequently posted as
Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies had any doubt as
to the nature of the order passed on 21.8.95, he should have
taken the Royal Road of approaching the High Court and sought       B
for proper clarifications instead of taking his own decision to
reverse the orders granting time bound promotions to the peril
of the employee and that too without even referring to the order
dated 21.8.95. Even thereafter when the said employee filed
the present Writ Petition in CWJC No.9019 of 2003, the              c
appellant ought to have rectified his mistake and restored the
benefits of time bound promotions granted in favour of the
employee concerned and thereby displayed his remorse
conduct by complying with the directions of the High Court.

     10. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this     D
appeal discloses that instead of displaying such fair conduct
before ti1e Court, he appeared to have attempted to justify his
action by resorting to an escape route and stated to have
offered his regret and unconditional apology as a last resort to
pardon him from being punished for any contempt action.             E
Orders and judgments of the Court are meant to be obeyed and
not to be disobeyed, with impunity. Of late, we come across
several such instances, where high level officers of the
Administration display scant regard for the orders of the Court
and always come forward with lame excuses. The case on hand         F
is one such instance where the appellant who was a senior level
l.A.S. Officer with not less than 30 years of experience in the
State Administration came forward with a lame and flippant
statement that he did not understand the implication of the order
of the High Court which led him to pass such orders in total        G
derogation of the directions contained in the orders of the High
Court.

     11. In the light of the above conclusion of ours, on going
through the orders impugned in this appeal, we do not find any      H
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
  Before us the learned counsel stated that the appellant has
  retired from service and while appearing before us the learned
  counsel submitted that the appellant expresses his deep
  regrets and sincere apologies without any reservation for
B whatever conduct displayed by him in the matter of non-
  compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 21.8.95.

        12. We, therefore, hold that the orders impugned in this
  appeal in having concluded that the appellant committed
C contempt of its order dated 21.08.95 does not call for
  interference. We, however, take into account the age of the
  appellant as well as the remorse conduct now displayed before
  us, as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
  we are of the view that the simple imprisonment of two months
  alone need not be retained. We, however, impose a "stern
D warning" to be recorded as against the appellant apart from
  confirming the imposition of fine of Rs.2000/- to be paid as per
  the order of the learned Judge impugned in this appeal. We
  further direct that the said fine amount of Rs.2000/- shall be paid,
  as directed by the learned Judge, within four weeks from the
E date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing compliance of the
  said condition, the sentence of simple imprisonment of two
  months shall stand revived. With the above directions, this
  appeal stands disposed of.

F R.P.                                         Appeal disposed of.