RAM KISHANversusSH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.

                       [2014] 1 S.C.R. 538


A                          RAM KISHAN
                                 v.
                   SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.
                Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2013
                                IN
B                 Civil Appeal No. 4985 of 2012

                        JANUARY 17, 2014

      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

C       Contempt of Court

        Disobedience of court's orders - Court directing
  reinstatement with consequential benefits as a/so back wages
  - Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of order as
0
  petitioner was denied benefit of re-designated post on a higher
  pay scale after his compulsory retirement - Held: Contempt
  proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and, therefore,
  standard of proof required is beyond all reasonable doubt -
  If two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
  contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
E maintainable - In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
  established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful' - Even if
  there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience
  is the result of some compelling circumstances under which
  it was not possible for alleged contemnor to comply with the
F order, he cannot be punished - In the absence of any
  provision, the statutory authority cannot be asked to pay the
  salary to two persons for one post, particularly in view of the
  fact that the person appointed to the post had never been a
  party to the /is, nor her re-designation/promotion had ever
G been challenged - No case is made out to initiate contempt
  proceedings against respondents.

        WORDS AND PHRASES:


H                               538
    RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.               539


    Word 'wilful' - Connotation of in the content of A
proceedings for contempt of court.

     In a writ petition filed, by the applicant challenging his
compulsory retirement, the single Judge of the High
Court directed his reinstatement with all consequential 8
benefits, but without back wages for the period he was
out of job. In the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, the
Supreme Court allowed him back wages. The
Department denied him the benefit of re-designated pay/
post and the pay-scale of a higher post wherein after his C
compulsory retirement another person had been
appointed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the contempt
petition alleging disobedience of the Court's order.

    Dismissing the petition, the Court
                                                             D
     HELD: 1.1. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the
law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful
disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to
the majesty of law. Contempt proceedings are quasi-
criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof         E
required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable
doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence
for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (para 9) [545-B-C, E]

     V. G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 F
SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001
SC 3468; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors.
2002 (2) SCR 346 = AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank of Baroda v.
Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr. 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 764      =
AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of G
U.P. & Ors. 2010 (2) SCR 1086 = (2010) 3 sec 705; and
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr. AIR 2013
SC 1299 - referred to.

                                                             H
    540     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A     1.2. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be
  established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. The
  act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without
  justifiable excuse or stubborniy, obstinately or
  perversely". Even if there ls a disobedience of an order,
B but such disobedience is the result of some compelling
  circumstances under which it was not possible for the
  contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor
  cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not
  be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default
c or misconduct". [para 10] [545-G; 546-8, C-D]
       S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v V. R. Pattabiraman 1985 (2)
  SCR 643 =AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapal/i Raja Rama Gopala
  Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr. 1989 (1) Suppl.
  SCR 115 =AIR 1989 SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors.
D etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 720 =
  AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa 2000
  (2) SCR 13 = AIR 2000 SC 1880; Mis. Ashok Paper Kamgar
  Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 105;
  State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. 11/iyas, 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 395
E = AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE,
  Raipur 2013 (3) SCR 27 = (2013) 9 SCC 753; Lt. Col. K.D.
  Gupta v. Union of India &Anr., AIR 1989 SC 2071; Mrityunjoy
  Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors. 2001 (2) SCR
  471 =AIR 2001 SC 1293~ relied on.
F
       1.3. It is well settled principle of law that if two
  interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
  contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
  maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be
G taken into consideration and the same must be read in
  its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an
  indispensable requirement to bring home the charge
  within the meaning of the Act. [para 13] [547-C-D]

          Sushi/a Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), AIR 2008
H
     RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.              541

(Supp-2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt.        A
Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735 - relied on.


     1.4. In the instant case, in the absence of any
provision, the statutory authority cannot be asked to pay    B
the salary to two persons for one post, particularly, in
view of the fact that the person appointed to the post had
never been a party to the tis, nor her re-designation/
promotion had ever been challenged by the applicant or
someone else. In such a fact-situation, leaving the issue
of entitlement of the applicant, this Court is of the
                                                             c
considered opinion that no case is made out to initiate
the contempt proceedings against the respondents.
[para14-15] [547-E-F, G]
                    Case Law Reference:                      D
    AIR 1992 SC 2153               referred to   para 9
    AIR 2001 SC 3468               referred to   para 9
    2002 (2) SCR 346               referred to   para 9
                                                             E
    2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 764        referred to   para 9
    2010 (2) SCR 1086              referred to   para 9
    AIR 2013 SC 1299               referred to   para 9.
                                                             F
    1985 (2) SCR 643               relied on     para 10
    1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 115        relied on     para 10
    1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 720        relied on     para 10
    2000 (2) SCR 13                relied on     para 10     G

    AIR 2004 SC 105               retied on      para 10
    2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 395       retied on      para 10
    2013 (3) SCR 27                relied on     para 10     H
    542      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A         AIR 1989 SC 2071                relied on      para 11
          2001 (2) SCR 471                relied on      para 12
          AIR 2008 (Supp-2) SC 1837       relied on      para 13
          AIR 2009 SC 735                 relied on      para 13
B
          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
    (Civil) No. 336 of 2013.
                                     IN
c         CIVIL Appeal No. 4985 of 2012
        From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2009 of the
    High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters
    Patent Appeal No. 542 of 2009.
          Rajat, Vikas Mehta for the Appellant.
D
          Narender Hooda, AAG, S.S. Hooda, Kamal Mohan Gupta
    for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This Contempt Petition has
   been filed by the applicant that the respondents, who are
   alleged contemnors herein, have wilfully violated the judgment
   and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by this Court in C.A. No.
   1\985 of 2012 as the respondents failed to pay all consequential
F benefits of service as directed and thus, the respondents should
   be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act,
   1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and further, to direct
   the contemnors to implement the order in its true spirit and fix
   his pension according to the post of Joint Secretary (Legal) and
   provide all its retirement benefits.
G
        2. Facts and circumstances of this petition are that the
   applicant while working as an Under Secretary (Legal), Dakshin
   Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
   'hligam') was compulsorily retired vide an order dated
: 19.11.2003. Aggrieved, he challenged the said order by filing
 1
     RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.                   543
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2004 and during its pendency, he          A
reached the age of superannuation on 28.2.2006. The said writ
petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment
and order dated 10.2.2009 quashing the impugned order dated
19.11.2003 but did not award the back wages to the applicant
for the period he was out of job. The Nigam filed LPA No. 646       B
of 2009 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The
applicant also filed LPA No. 542 of 2009 for claiming the
arrears of pay. The LPA of Nigam was dismissed affirming the
judgment and order of the Single Judge vide judgment and
order dated 24.7.2009 and has attained finality. The appeal         c
filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment and
order dated 10.8.2009.
      3. Aggrieved, the applicant challenged the judgment and
order dated 10.8.2009 of the ·Division Bench by filing the
Special Leave Petition which was entertained as C.A. No.            D
4985 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 directing that the applicant
shall be entitled to the back wages for the period during which
he was out of job alongwith reinstatement. The applicant has
not been given the benefit of re-designated pay/post and the        E
pay-scale of a higher post wherein after the compulsory
retirement of the applicant, one Smt. Pooman Bhasin had been
appointed w.e.f. 16.3.2005 and has been extended the benefit
which has been allegedly denied to the applicant.
     Hence, this Contempt Petition.                                 F
     4. Shri Vikas Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant, has submitted that as the learned Single Judge
of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the
applicant quashing the order of compulsory retirement with all
consequential benefits except back wages and this Court             G
allowed the appeal of tlie applicant and has given back wages
also. The conjoint reading of both the orders tantamount to grant
of all possible/permissible benefits to the applicant for his
service. As the applicant was senior to Smt. Poonam Bhasin,
he was entitled to the re-designated post as well as the salary     H
    544      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   for the post of Joint Secretary (Legal), which has been denied
    by the respondents. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for the
    claim and the respondents should be prosecuted and punished
    for disobedience of the said judgments and orders.
       5. On the contrary, Shri Narender Hooda, learned AAG
B appearing on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently
  opposed the application contending that there is neither any
  direction of any court to give benefit of the revised post to the
  applicant, nor his candidature has ever been considered for that
  post. The State authority cannot be forced to pay the salary to
C two persons for one post. The applicant has never challenged
  the re-designation of Smt. Poonam Bhasin. Thus, there is no
  wilful disobedience of any order passed by this Court. The
  application for initiating the contempt proceedings is totally
  misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
D
       6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by
  learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
        7. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
    granting the relief to the applicant reads:
E         "Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated
          19.11.2003 (Annexure P-27) is set aside and the petitioner
          is ordered to be reinstated into service with all
          consequential benefits. It is, however, clarified that the
          petitioner will not be entitled to wages for the period he
F         was out of job."
                                                   (Emphasis added)
         The judgment and order of this Court dated 5.7.2012 in
    Civil Appeal No. 4985/2012 reads:
G         "Accordingly, we allow the appeal and modify the order of
          the learned Single Judge, as also of the Division Bench,
          by directing that the appellant will also be entitled to back-
          wages for the period during the termination of his services
          and reinstatement in terms of the High Court's order."
H         8. Both the judgments referred to hereinabove speak of
     RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.                    545
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
back wages and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in           A
the High Court referred to all consequential benefits.
Therefore, the question does arise as to whether such an order
would also mean that the applicant could claim post revision
and benefits of the higher post without being considered for the
said post.                                                           B
      9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts
power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/
contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for
the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts
of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that       C
his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric
of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary
is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a
powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by
itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise   D
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor
reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the
Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and
therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is
beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to         E
impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of
contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V. G. Nigam
& Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153; Chhotu
Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan
Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank          F
of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., AIR 2004 SC
942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay
Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299).
      10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be         G
established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. The word
'wilful' introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking
into the mind of person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which
is an indication of one's state of mind. 'Wilful' means knowingly
intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full          H
    546     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A   knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes
    casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine
    inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or
    negligent actions. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose
    or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or
B   perversely''. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done
    carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not
    include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate
    conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and
    intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated
C   action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a
    disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result
    of some compelling circumstances under which it was not
     possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the
     contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will
D    not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default
     or misconduct". (Vide: S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R.
     Pattabiraman; AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapa/li Raja Rama
     Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr., AIR 1989
     SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. etc.etc. v. State of Haryana
     & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa,
E   AIR 2000 SC 1880; Mis. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors.
     v. Dharam Godha & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 105; State of Orissa
     & Ors. v. Md. lfliyas, AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles
    Ltd. v. ccE, Raipur, (2013) 9 sec 753).
F       11. In Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., AIR
    1989 SC 2071, this Court dealt with a case wherein direction
    was issued to the Union of India to pay the amount of Rs. 4
  lakhs to the applicant therein and release him from defence
  service. The said amount was paid to the applicant after
  deducting the income tax payable on the said amount. While
G dealing with the contempt application, this Court held that
  "withholding the amount cannot be held to be either malafide
  or was there any scope to impute that the respondents
  intended to violate the direction of this Court."
H         12. In Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman
       RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.                   547
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

& Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293, the Court while dealing with the            A
issue whether a doubt persisted as to the applicability of the
order of this Court to complainants held that it would not give
rise to a contempt petition. The court was dealing with a case
wherein the statutory authorities had come to the conclusion
that the order of this court was not applicable to the said           B
complainants while dealing with the case under the provision
of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.
     13. It is well settled principle of law that if two
interpretations are possible, and if the action is not
contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be                      C
maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken
into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety.
Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable
requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the
Act. (See: Sushi/a Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.}, AIR 2008          D
(Supp-2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735).
      14. In view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, we
have repeatedly asked the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant under what circumstances this Court can ~sk the             E
statutory authority to pay the salary to two persons for one post,
particularly in view of the fact that Smt. Poonam Bhasin had
never been a party to the lis, nor her re-designation/promotion
had ever been challenged by the applicant or someone else.
More so, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out        F
the service rules applicable to the applicant to assess his
eligibility etc.
     15. In such a fact-situation, leaving the issue of entitlement
of the applicant, we are of the considered opinion that no case
is made out to initiate the contempt proceedings against the          G
respondents. The petition is totally misconceived and devoid
of merit, hence, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
R.P.                                         Petition dismissed.
                                                                      H