Holding

A contempt order that does not specifically name the persons to be detained or the property to be attached is invalid, and the Union of India must comply with the injunction and pay back wages within a week.

Summary

The Union of India, acting through the Railway Department, removed a railway inspector, Satish Chandra Sharma, for alleged misconduct and later ordered his reinstatement and back pay through an interim injunction. Sharma failed to comply with the injunction, prompting the trial court, under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the CPC, to issue a contempt order directing attachment of departmental property and imprisonment of unnamed officers. The High Court upheld the contempt order but left it to the trial court to name the contemners. The Supreme Court held that such a contempt order was invalid because it failed to specifically identify the persons to be detained or the property to be attached, violating principles of natural justice and procedural law. The Court emphasized that contempt powers must be exercised sparingly and that a government servant removed for misconduct cannot be instantly reinstated with full back pay without due administrative processes. The appeal was allowed, directing the Union of India to comply with the injunction and pay the outstanding wages within a week.

Issues considered

The validity of a contempt order under Order 39 Rule 2(3) CPC that orders attachment of property and imprisonment of unnamed officers.
Whether a court can enforce reinstatement and back pay of a government servant removed for misconduct without completing administrative procedures.
Whether the High Court erred in leaving identification of contemners to the trial court.
The requirement of specificity in contempt orders to satisfy natural justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 39 Rule 2(3)

Subjects

contempt of courtinjunctioncivil proceduregovernment servantreinstatementback payattachment of propertyimprisonmentnatural justicedue process

Judgment

298

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
November 27, 1979
B (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---$uch order whether valid.
c
The respondent a railway employee was proceeded against by the depe.i-t.m&nt
for misconduct. He did not respond to the 'show-cause' notice issued to bim
and when the disciplinazy proceeding$ 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-
D 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.
E 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.
F 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]
II _ 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
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
A
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] .
'• B
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}
c
Ia the instant case, the orders pa.~cd by the .Mull.';if and the High Court
i, 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
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 personal liberty is protected by a processual nrmour, even
if its deprivation be the product of the judicial process. [300 E]

7. The contempt power should be kept sheathed and tbe sword shouit.! bo
urav.n only sparingly if the court i~ convin~cu that there bas been wilful Jcfian..:"
E
C•r disobedience. [306 C)
8. Once there ill clear eviJ.:nce of active obedience, coupled with cxpre.;sior:
uf n:grc:t, Jcl..tycJ though the c.:'Ompliance be due to the inevitublc time-b:;
induced by tht.> paper· logg'.:d procedures, the court may ,be clcmcnL [306 D] ·
I

CrvTL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appt:al No. 2031 of 1979. F
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and O~dcr . d:,tted
~0·1·79 of the Rajasth:.tn High Court (Jlipur Dc:nch) at Jarpur m S.B.
Revi')ion No. 1 12/76.
•
I
Soli J. Sur(lbje~. Solicitor Gt•m•r,Jl, Sublwllll Markendya and Giri1f1
Cha11dra for the Appellants. G
flalakri.1/uw Gaur for the! Rc:~pvnJc:nt.
'Inc Jud"mcnt
;:;>
of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA }YCR, J.-An oJJ case of sentence o( three months'.civi!
imprisonment and attachment of assets of the Central Government anJ
two of its officers for Jdault in instant reinstatement of a ~ailway In-;- II
pcctor removed from service for misconduct occasions this nppcal by
~pedal k::wc.

.... ~ ·- .
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.•
300
A The Court System is neither a cloistered virtue ~or a self:righteous
process and readily re-examines, in its appellate crucible, the JUdgments
rendered at lesser levels even if the subject-mattc.r ?c, as here, a~leged
d .ISObCd'Jence. 0 r a J'udicial order. Justice is not hubnstic
• • h and htruth 'tnumps
·'
· · · n • And so, this Court, •in• keeping
by SeIf-crlliCISl • •wit sue an• UlYigiia-
tive perspective, must review the pumtlve directive of the tnal co~rt,
B affirmed upto the High Court but challenged before us, that the Umon
of India and its officers in the Railway Department-the appellants-
do suffer distraint of property and imprisonment of person for the con-
tempt of its authority by non-compliance with its order of injunction.
This case disturbs us $Omcwhat and constrains us to go to the basics in
a certain branch of the jurisprudence of r.ontempt of court.
c
As will presently appear, the synthesis of two seemingly antithetical
creeds, both vital to our Republic is the key to the crucial issue project-
ed by rh:s appeal where disobedience of a mat111Jtnry injunction to
retain in service, pende11Ze /ize, the respondent, a railway insp.!ctor,
,/ regardless d the disciplinary proceedings which tiad by then allegedly
D culminated in his exi~t from service. The courr shall neither be im-
f
perious nor he obsequiou~. The law, in the area of contempt of court,
'I
• must avoid the extremes of hyper-reactivity to marginal indifference to
,judicial _authority out or pragmatic difficulties and or hypo-respect for
court commands in a ca\<!lier spirit of 'the· court has no gun~. \\'hy
•I E care?'
\ The fluid, yet valid. concept or 'contempt of court' keeps judges
under the rule or Jaw; for, personal liberty, untkr our constitutional
'< order, is protected by a proccssual armour, even if its deprivation be
\
the product of the judicial process. This carem is called for in the
?rcs~nt ca\e where we are confronted by a bizarre order of contingent
lmpnsonmcnt of unspecified servants and coercive attachml.'Til of un-
particula_ri~cd properties o[ the Union of Jndia. Ami yet, this order
ha~ .Mrrv1ved 1\lo appeals before arriving here by special kavc.
n,e fatts <~re few and the law is not abstruse; yet, in our view, the
on.J~r under ~Prx:~J is an overzealous commanu with fatal failings writ
on II~ face. ~l~e rc~ponJL'Tit , an Jru;pcctor in the Western Railway, was
~~oc~~dcd .:sa•n~t :or misconduct, He diu not show up when the 'show
l:aU\1,; nOIJCC Wa~ I~~ucd; anu When tlw Jisciplinary Steps proceeded
funh<:r he art(ully r h •d
•
. ·
u~ c to t1Jc muns•fs court by passion the depart·
)
mental process and s ·d r d . .' "'
• , • ,' UC or a eclaraliOO of 1111111Ullity and permanent
.uga•~~t further govcrnm.:ntal action. Inevitably he moved
11 rmJunc!IOdn
or an a 111terun inJ' un ·f . • .
. .
l~~~ pos1bon .m serv1ce
.· . . ..: •on to restram the Railways from aticctJng
by 0 1· · . . .
. e n Inlllng the d•sc1phnary enq•,Iiry and to
.:c•ntmuc to pa)' hi~ f 11 s· I· , .·
u a ar}· After h.:anng both sides the court
_ , .. -- - -- -~ ........ ,•.·-·.: . . ··. .·.
i

UNION V. S. C. SHARMA (Krishna lyer, J.} 301

issued, on April 15, 1974, such an injunction or freeze order which A
was aP,pcalcd against in vain; and eventually, the revision to the Hi"'h
f ~ Court also provec.l fruitless. The blanket order, which was sustained
reads thus : - '
I
I, therefore, order and direct the N .A. Union oE India
and · its employees not to implement or otherwise put in effect B
the order of dismissal at .18-1-74 or any other one removing,
terminating or dismissing the services of the applicant as
J.O.W. of Western Railways and direct further that the
r applicant shall be retained and continued on post, power, pay,
privileges and perquisites attached to the post of Inspector of
· Works, W. Rly, and in the same manner as if no orders of c
removal or any other one were passed.
••
' In other words h~ shall be placed in the position as he
held it on 14-1-1974 in the matter or pay, power, privileges
and all other perquisites that he availed and · enjoyed on
14- 1-1974 and immcdiaJcly before. D
The appdlauts, hopdully but h<trmfu Uy, as events pro,·cd, awaited the
decision in the higher courts before implementing the direction for re--
instatement. But even while the case. o[ injunction was pending in the
District Court, in appeal, an application under 0 .39 R.2( 3) for disobe-
dience was filed on 15-7-1974. The trial judge held the appellants E
guilty and passed a nebulous srntcnce ag::~inst nameless culprits on
January 5, 1976 in these terms.
It is also clear that the non-applicants according to the
dcci~ion of this court dated 15-4-74 have not continued pay-
ment of the wages and other allowances and therefore it fully F
proved that the non-applicants have not carried out the order
dated 15-4-74 of this court. Now the non-applicants are
hereby further ordered that if they fail to comply with the
order dated t 5.4.74 within 15 days the opposite rarty shall
be vio;itcd with the orJer of attachment of pro~Xrty and send-
t ing them to civil jail. As the n011-applicant No. 2 has been G
tr;n'ift!rrcd from Kota Division, therefore, the compliance
uf the order will b~.: made by the present Divisional Superin-
' tendent, Kota.
'
(Translation furnished in court by the karned Solicitor General)

An unsuccessful nppeal and an · unrewarding revision ensued. TI1e R
Iligh Court hortatively told th~ Union of India that the law is the King
elf Kings :~nd. admonished in high-sounding style--
SU!'J(I:Mll COURT I•EI'ORTS [1980) 2 S.C.R.
302

that the state functionaries should atlcast after 28 years
of ·the functioning of the Constitution and rule of law in this
country, realise understand and literally and faithfully impk-
ment the judicial pronouncement by showing respect to law.
All the officers, the citizens in general, the litigants and the
State functionaries in all seriousness should keep the follow-
n ing ~:tcrnal saying of the great jurist Maharshi Manu as up-
,,•
permost in our mind, i.e. .'Law is the King of Kings-far
more rigid and powerful than they, there is nothing higher
than law; and by its powers the weak shall prevail over the
strong and justice shall triumph'. I wish this should not only
be exhibited as the guide Jines in all Government offices, im-
c portant public institutions, street-corners and road corner:;
but acts upon both in letter and ~pirit by all irrespective of
the office, profession, status and assignment which one holds
in life. ·
We agrec'but wish to add that the Manu text be exhibited also in court-
D hans togetl1er with Cromwell's famous statement which the great Judge.
Leamcd Hand wanted &hould be hung on legislative and court haUs :
'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you might
be mi.~taken !'
Jf we scan the anatomy of the Munsifs order, which was upheld aU
E ~long, we notice awesome implications that if, within 15 days, compli-
ance with the injunction did not take pl:lce-which implied payment of
long years' salaries and re-induction into service of the respondent (who
hotd by then been removed), all of which required much more time to
~ccure sanctions and drawalc; of moneys in a mammoth hierarchical
machine-the opposite parties (who, a1110ng them ?-) shall be visited
F with the order of attachment of property (which?) and sending them
(whom ?) lo civil jail (for how long?). As the non-applicant No. 2
ha! been transferred from Kota Division tlu.:rcforc, the compliance of
the mdcr will be made hy the present Divisional Superintendent, Kota
(and ~o, the trans!~:rcc officer was in peril of imprisonment?). Th.!
hmcketC<I interrogations arc ours, bricfiy to indicate that where liberty
G and property arc to be deprived it is fundamental that vagueness i~ a
fatal vice even if the issuing authority be the court. The infirmity was
c0rrectcd in small part by the High Court i11 revision ns will presently
votice.
Anyway, this orJcr wa~ ~taycd by the High_ Court on 5-3-1976 until
II jt finally di.~mi~sed the revision on January 20, 1979. And it i~ the
appd!anl's case that salaries thereafter have been paid, calcubtiom
b;;ve bc..:n made, ~ancliuns obtained and money withdrawn and all the
UNION V. S. C. SHARMA (Krish11a !Yer, J.) JOJ

Jucs of years u~ ready. to be distributed. The question i~ whether the
uction for disobedience was legal and just;ficd, and, in any case, the
draconian punishment of Government by attaching its properties and
putting its servants in jail was a desertion of judicial discretion whose
haU-mark is to be firm but not authoritarian, liberal but not petulant,
and ever informed by realism and impressed with contrition.
·. We have here an interlocutory. injunction, though unusual, whose
B

soundness is being tested in a separate proceeding in this Court. Let
us, pro 1cnrpare, assume its valid existence and focus on the follow-
up o[ a-lleged breach and visitation of punishment. What was the
directiOn? Could it be practical to comply within that time, having
due reg:m.l to the inertia of administrative processes? Was there c
.rccus:mt refusal, and, if so, by whom, in the ~:onspcctus of fac1s
.. here? When docs the court go to the extreme of imprisonment of ,
government servants at lesser levels, who ha.ve to act on orders from
abole, for disobedience? Is it the path of judicial discretion to
temper justice with mercy or practise the opposite? Above all,
D
though arising in limine, can there be an order of contingent artacb-
mcnt of unspt•cifird properties ? Can the court imprison any dne
unidentified in the order by making an omnibus direction leaving the
life-giving P"J.rt.S blanks to be filled up long after the judgment and,
perhaps, to aUow the bailiff to sicze whom he regards as the viola-
tory? May be, 'Hurry Kills' and 'hasten slowly' are mottos good £
for every one who exercises power either at the wheel of an autoroo-
hlle or through the pen of a public functionary. ·
We will proceed to n:solve these questions which enbosom their
an~wcrs in their \'Cry formulation. For instance, does not the mere
i.l~k.ing c-.tll Cor the obvious a·nswer that no order by howt!vcr high a p
power can be fair or reasonable if it jcopardiscs the person of a
citizen wearing thl! armour of part Ill, without so much as spccificat-·
JOg the identity of the human being upon whom the authority is w
lay hands. And yet, the karncd .Munsif mw:ly directed that 'the
(Jpposite part{ (a plurality of th.rc~. including the ~entro.l Govcn~-
I IJII.: ot) be sent to civil jail. Morcowr, the order nottccs that the D1- G
vi~umal Superintendent (1'2) has ~ccn tran~fcrro.:d an~ ~et th: inno~ '
l:~Ot trar>~krcc is put in peril ()f mcarccrat!On. Rcahstng thts fatal
.• Jbw, the IIir.h Courc sought to repair the y:~wning tear by making
tl11!, following obwrv:~tiun-cum-dircction :
. Th.: karnct! Munsif Magistrate, who passed tht! earlier n
' lkr
11 1
on J.:wuary 5, 1976 could not proceed with the pro-
~.:~:nl:ng-> f 0 r sending ' the petitioners concerned to Civil Jail
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R.
304
and also of attachment of the prop~rty. It would be f~r
A· ·r ed to name the officer concemed who ts .., I
the Munst concern . . '
. . 'd I b sent to Jail and further to gn•e details of the
reqmrc o e . f ll'
property to be attached for the purpose ~ c.ompe mg com-
pliance as per finding already given m . Jlldgmellt dared
January 5 1976 as modified in appeal.
B ' (emphasis added J
The court was relentless even when informed that the payment o[
salary pursuant to the order passed by the Hi~h Court ~a~ oalready
been made. The concluding portion of the Htgh Courts ~udgmcnl
stated that the Munsif concerned should take prompt action ''for
c executing his order in respcc~ of sending concerne~ offic~r to Jai:
and
the alfac!lment of the property concerned as m.;::ottoned m his j\ldg-
ment .... " Both the orders keep the identity of the k.cy pcrsons
and properties in uncertainty.
·,
We arc a little startled that a court in the contempt jurisdiction
should deprive the personal liberty of a person without naming in
D
the order whom the Court's bailiff should take into custody or the jail
authorities should ~ccive. Equally clearly, how could property be
taken without its being· particulariscd in the judgment, disregarding
procedural obligations? It is· not as if without hearing the ollicer
to be jailed and his case ag.aimt detention considered, the Munsif giv~·
E ad hoc details of property to be attached without hearing the owner
thereof as to his version about why his property should not be touched .
••r The constitutional sanctity of liberty and the (then) protcction o[ pro-
I ~
1.•, perty will become chimerical and the processual law will hang limp
~ ..,
a, if the substantive order is silent and identifying the oticn~h:r is t.:ft over
\ as a ministerial measure. · The High Court was in error in. leaving it
F to the trial court tO' designate such names when it actually issued the
ministerial order to execute its decretal order. Namckss humans can-
not be whisked o!I to prison even in the nnmc of contempt by insertion
of the name after the judgment is delivered. Natural justice is a
pervasive doctrine integral to proccssual fair-play in Indian jurispru-
dence. For this reason alone, the extent order under challenge is
G
vulnerable-against both the atl~tchmcnt of unspecified property and
detention of unnamed contemners. ·
ln~cpcndcnlly of this invalidatory circumstance, it is apparent that
l~ere ~~ no ~ound for judicial indignation once the (acts are appre-
;
Ciated. tn thctr realistic setting. l11e order of injunction was road" ~y
·n the tn~l. court ~? 15-4-74 and brought before the High Court where
the revtst?n.pctt~lon was dismissed on 3-1-1979. Strictly speaking, the
order of Jn)Uncllon hau not been stayed and should have been obeyed.
:,!.." '

UNION V. S. C. SHARMA (Krishna l yer, J.)
305

Jt is no excuse to . say .that when
. appeal and revision pend , l'ftr t' '
11~a tv~.:

.... )lopes lull pcopIc mto msouc1ancc. While this is not prudent ·1 ·
. . d . b .
component .m JU gmg a out ob!>LIO':lte non-compliance. To institute
, l IS
a proceeding for disobedience of an injunction commanding reinstate-
ment of a government servant purportedly removed from service by .
th~ higher officers of ~he Railway, together with payment of salary for
.• prior periods, is a stul~ification of the jurisdiction, if sufficient time i;; B
not givtn. A little touch of realism would have easily convinced the
J{igh Court that a government scn."Jnt of the Union of India who had
been removed from service for misconduct could not be reinstated with
full back pay immediately the order was made by the Court. It had
to be communicated to various officers, orders had to be made at
various levels, files had to move and notings made for gestation before
c
implcmcnt'J.tion. All this takes time and when the court order is
f eventually effectuated, the salary of the officer will. of · course, have
to be paid with effect from the origi11ul dCite of the impugned threat of
lJCtion. To proccell to punish in haste without ·pausing to realise ·
how government functions is not fair !n this l!rlsti;: jurisdiction where D
personal freedom is in peril. Th.: de5cription of ib processes, as pre-
valent in the days of Lord Curzon, holds good to-day. Here arc his
impat.icnt words dipped in pungent ink:
I
•• . . . . the administration had b~comc ponJcrous. like an
ckphant-'very stately, very pnwcrful, with a high standard E
of intelligence, but with a regal slowness in · it.s g'.lit' "(')
''Round and rounJ, like ~he diurnal revolution of the
earth, went the file, stately, solemn, sure an? slow: and
now in due season, it has completed its orb1t, and I am
F
invit~d to register the concluding stagc."e) ..

We arc in no mood to condone w.ilful procrastination n~r su[c~ wantot~
~>tagmtion in Admjnistration as a ground for default 'tnhcobkcy~lncgvacdoeurrs
1 bosses nor c c ··
<>rders.The Law docs not resp!.!c~ azyh be~ brou"ht to our notice.
I nut no proof o f t ha t !ipc~c1·cs• of ~\lllt
~
as ~.;n ~
ea is 3. sine qua non.
' G
•
Mere inaction has no long m1lcage where mms r
. ourt's order holding the appellants in
We, therefore, regard ,the .c , bl ~nno;ed by absence of instant
contempt, a hasty measure, p1ob.l Y . ..
<:cynpliancc. 11
Life or Lord Curzon London
· · r .. 1 0
(I) Curwn, CH-:I!rn "-"r
r Ron JJ,hay. I

1928 Vol. 2 P· .~· ., Fc:b. J')()l.
(2) Curwn lo Ham•lton. -
1
SUPREME COURT REPORT? (198Qj 2 S.C.R.
306

A The severity of the sentence is beyond ~omprch.:nsion. We can-
not understand how the court could ignore the fact that salary
had been paid from the date of tl1e High Court's ~rder upfo date and
the rcadim:ss to pay the back salaries, on securtng the appropriate
sanction and drawal of chcque, had been represented to the court.
Before us, the learned Solicitor Gcoeral said that the entire back wage!>
8 were ready to be paid and the necessary cheque bad already beeP I •
drawn. We sec no inclination on the part of the Governmcnt of India
to adopt a challenging attitude against the court:s writ. It is wtH-
~nown that the contempt power should be kept sheathed and the sword
should be drawn only sparingly if .the court is convinced that there ha~
. '
wilful defiance or disobedient:~. Moderation knds dignity to
c been
power and we feel that the facts of the present case far fro{ll call fur
any stronger step than an admonition to comply within a realistic spell
of time and stiffer action thereafter. We do not take the view that
the Union of lndia shouJd be shown undue indulgence or its oflictr;
singular solicitude. But once there is dear evidence of active obedience,
coupled with expression of regret dcl~ycd though the compliance b.:
due to the inevitable time-lag induced by paper-Jogged procedures, the:
court may be clement. Here, compliance anJ contrition arc now
· present.

In these circumstanct-s, we allow the appcul and record thc unJcr-
t~ taldrig of the Union of India, the 1st appellant, th•..tt the entire ~;1bry
due to the rcspondcnt will be paid within one week from tG-day.

N.V.K.
J
.i