AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS.versusPRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT

                [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1044 : 2024 INSC 575

                       Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.
                                 v.
                         Prakash Kumar Dixit
                   (Civil Appeal No. 8129-8130 of 2024)
                                29 July 2024
               [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI,
                J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi for challenging
       an order of the DIG (CR&VIG), whereby he was removed from
       service. The High Court set aside the impugned order; imposed
       a minor penalty on him; reinstated him without back wages;
       directed his reinstatement to be dated back to 1995 (when the
       original order of dismissal was made) for the purposes of pay
       fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including
       promotions; and also directed the Order to be implemented within
       8 weeks. When he was not reinstated within time prescribed and
       was denied promotion to the eligible rank of IG by the time he
       superannuated, the Respondent initiated contempt proceedings
       before a Single Judge in the High Court. The Court was of the
       opinion that there was willful disobedience on the part of the
       Appellants in complying with the earlier directions issued by the
       Division Bench. The Appellants went in Appeal before a Division
       Bench of the High Court. It was rejected as not maintainable under
       Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act.
       The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to decide as
       to when a Letter Patent Appeal lies against an Order of a Single
       Judge of High Court if such an appeal is not maintainable under
       Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

                                 Headnotes†
       Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 19 – Midnapore
       Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and
       Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 – The position w.r.t. appeals
       against orders in contempt proceedings – Reiterated:



* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                                 1045

             Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit


     Held: Para 11 of the judgment in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank
     Ltd. case sums up the principles in regard to appeals against
     orders in contempt proceedings, as under:-
     I.     An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an
            order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its
            jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing
            punishment for contempt.
     II.    Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt,
            nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order
            dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting
            or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19
            of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open
            to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
     III.   In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide
            whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if
            so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental
            thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate
            or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute
            between the parties.
     IV.    Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court
            on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be
            in the exercise of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and,
            therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act.
            The only exception is where such direction or decision is
            incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing
            for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of
            the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably
            connected directions.
     V.     If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue
            or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute
            between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved
            person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to
            challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a
            learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court
            appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article
            136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). [Para 13]
     Letter Patent Appeal – Whether it lies in the facts of the
     case – Principles laid down in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank
1046                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others [2006] Supp. 2
    SCR 986 applied:
    Held: Single Judge in his order held that – (1) the appellants were
    guilty of contempt of the order; (2) the respondent was entitled to
    promotion to the rank of IG; and (3) gave an opportunity to the
    Appellants “to issue a fresh order granting promotion to the petitioner
    to the rank of IG” to bring him at par with his immediate junior – There
    is a crystallized finding about the entitlement of Respondents and guilt
    of Appellants – The finding on Appellants’ guilt cannot be challenged
    under Section 19 Contempt Act at this stage since there is no order
    imposing punishment – The finding with regard to the entitlement
    of promotion is amenable to challenge as per principle laid down in
    Para 11 (V) of the Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others
    judgment – Letter Patent Appeal restored. [Paras 15, 17, 18]

                              Case Law Cited
    Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda
    and Others [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 : (2006) 5 SCC 399 – relied on

                                 List of Acts
    The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

                             List of Keywords
    Contempt; Letter Patent Appeal; Reinstatement; Section 19 of
    Contempt Act.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8129-8130 of
    2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2024 and 02-06-2023
    of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 157 of 2024 and
    CONT.CAS(C) No. 198 of 2020 respectively
                         Appearances for Parties
    Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G.,
    Siddharth Sinha, Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Astha Singh, Ishaan Sharma,
    Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
    Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv., Anand Shankar Jha, Rohan Mandal, Abhilekh
    Tiwari, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           1047

            Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1.   Delay condoned.
2.   Leave granted.
3.   A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner
     for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer
     Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in
     July 1995.
4.   After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected,
     the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the
     Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary
     to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings.
5.   By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the
     High Court of Delhi directed that :
           "34 For all of the aforementioned reasons, the order
               dated 16 th October, 2018, passed by the DIG
               (CR&VIG) in the Directorate General, CRPF,
               imposing the penalty of removal from service on the
               Petitioner, is hereby set aside. The minor penalty as
               decided by the DA viz., “reduction to a lower stage
               in the scale of pay by one stage for a period not
               exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and
               adversely affecting pension” will be the penalty in
               the Petitioner’s case.
           35   Consequently, the Petitioner is directed to be
                forthwith reinstated in service, with all consequential
                benefits, but without any back wages. The date of
                reinstatement will relate back to the date of his having
                been originally removed from service i.e. 10th July
                1995, for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and
                all other consequential benefits including promotions.
                The consequential orders by way of implementation
                of this judgment be issued not later than 8 weeks
                from today.”
1048                                                       [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


6.   The respondent instituted contempt proceedings before the High
     Court of Delhi. He was reinstated in service by an order dated 8
     March 2021. The respondent was promoted to the rank of Deputy
     Commandant on a notional post with effect from 17 October 2021
     by an order dated 22 March 2023. He superannuated from service
     on 31 March 2023.
7.   In the course of the hearing of the contempt proceedings, the Single
     Judge in an order dated 2 June 2023, noted the submission of the
     respondent that even if the date of implementation of the minor penalty
     was from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till
     the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on 31 March
     2021. This emerges from paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Single
     Judge, which is in the following terms:
          "38 The Petitioner in his written submissions dated
              02.03.2023 had stated that even if the date of
              implementation of minor penalty is considered to
              take effect from 16.10.2018, he would be entitled to
              all promotions till the rank of IG from the year 2021,
              till his date of retirement, i.e. on 31.03.2023. The
              learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the
              said submission during the course of hearing dated
              03.03.2023 and submitted that the Petitioner would
              be satisfied if he is granted the rank of IG as on the
              date of his retirement.:
8.   After recording the above submission, the Single Judge proceeded to
     hold that there was a willful disobedience of the directions which were
     issued by the Division Bench with respect to pay fixation, seniority
     and all other consequential benefits including promotion. The finding
     in that regard is contained in paragraph 39 of the judgment of the
     Single Judge, which reads as follows :
          "39 This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that there
              is willful disobedience by the Respondent(s) of the
              directions issued by the Division Bench with respect
              to the implementation of the directions issued at
              paragraph 35 of the judgment dated 24.12.2019
              with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other
              consequential benefits including promotion.”
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1049

            Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit


9.   Thereafter, the Single Judge held the Inspector General of Police
     (Personnel) and DIG (Personnel) who held office as on 22 March 2023
     guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions
     contained in the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24 December
     2019. The Single Judge granted an opportunity to the appellants
     herein in the following terms :
           "41 This Court, however, grants an opportunity of six (6)
               weeks to the aforesaid Contemnors to issue a fresh
               order granting promotion to the Petitioner to the rank
               of IG to bring him at par with his immediate junior
               as per the merit cum seniority list at the time of the
               appointment.”
10. It was observed that in case the contemnors did not issue appropriate
    orders granting promotion to the respondent to the rank of IG within
    the time granted, the case would he heard for sentencing on the
    next date of hearing.
11. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench against
    the order of the Single Judge dated 2 June 2023. The Division Bench,
    however, rejected the Letters Patent Appeal as not being maintainable
    on the ground that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of
    Courts Act would not be maintainable since no punishment had been
    imposed by the Single Judge and the observations made by the
    Single Judge were not to be construed as crystallizing any right in
    favour of the respondent. On this understanding, the Division Bench
    has observed as follows :
           "52 He submitted that if the observations made by the
               Court in the impugned judgment are not construed as
               crystalising any rights in favour of the respondent and
               are only read as confined to the question whether the
               appellants have committed any willful disobedience
               of the order of the Court, the appellants would be
               satisfied.
           53   In view of our understanding of the impugned
                judgment as noted above, the learned Single Judge
                has not decided any dispute regarding the rights
                and obligations of the parties other than whether
                the appellants had committed contempt of court. All
1050                                                             [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


                    observations made by the learned Single Judge must
                    be read only for the purposes of determining whether
                    the appellants had willfully violated the judgment
                    dated 24.12.2019 issued by this Court.”
12. The narrow issue which falls for consideration at the present stage
    is as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the
    Single Judge dated 2 June 2023 was maintainable.
13. The law on the subject is settled by a judgment of a two Judge Bench
    of this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others
    v. Chunilal Nanda and Others.1 Paragraph 11 of the decision sums
    up the principles succinctly as follows :
            "11 The position emerging from these decisions, in regard
                to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings
                may be summarised thus:
                    I.     An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable
                           only against an order or decision of the High
                           Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to
                           punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing
                           punishment for contempt.
                    II.    Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings
                           for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings
                           for contempt nor an order dropping the
                           proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting
                           or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable
                           under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special
                           circumstances, they may be open to challenge
                           under Article 136 of the Constitution.
                    III.   In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court
                           can decide whether any contempt of court has
                           been committed, and if so, what should be the
                           punishment and matters incidental thereto.
                           In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to
                           adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the
                           merits of the dispute between the parties.


1   [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 986 : (2006) 5 SCC 299
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1051

            Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit


                IV.   Any direction issued or decision made by
                      the High Court on the merits of a dispute
                      between the parties, will not be in the exercise
                      of “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” and,
                      therefore, not appealable under Section 19
                      of the CC Act. The only exception is where
                      such direction or decision is incidental to or
                      inextricably connected with the order punishing
                      for contempt, in which event the appeal under
                      Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the
                      incidental or inextricably connected directions.
                V.    If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides
                      an issue or makes any direction, relating to the
                      merits of the dispute between the parties, in a
                      contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is
                      not without remedy. Such an order is open to
                      challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order
                      was of a learned Single Judge and there is a
                      provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking
                      special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
                      Constitution of India (in other cases).
                The first point is answered accordingly.”
14. Following the decision in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd., it is
    a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against
    an order imposing punishment for contempt.
15. In the order dated 2 June 2023, it has been held that the respondents
    before the Court, namely, the appellants to these proceedings are
    guilty of contempt. A Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable
    under Section 19, if the matter were to only rest there. However,
    from the extracts which have been reproduced in the earlier part of
    this judgment, it is evident that the Single Judge:
     (i)   Recorded the submission of the respondent herein (as set
           out in the written submissions dated 2 March 2023) that even
           if the implementation of the minor penalty was to take effect
           from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions
           till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on
           31 March 2023; and
1052                                                        [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     (ii)   Held that there was willful disobedience of the directions issued
            by the Division Bench on 24 December 2019 with respect to
            pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits
            including promotion.
16. The Single Judge, after recording the submissions as adverted to
    above, entered a specific finding in paragraph 39 that “this court is
    therefore, of the opinion that there is willful disobedience” (emphasis
    supplied). The above finding follows immediately upon the previous
    paragraph of the order which records the contention of the respondent
    herein that he was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG, in any
    event with effect from 2021.
17. Bearing in mind the above finding, the Single Judge gave an
    opportunity to the appellants “to issue a fresh order granting
    promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG” to bring him at par
    with his immediate junior. Reading the entirety of the order of the
    Single Judge, it is clear that besides holding that the appellants
    (who we the respondents before the Single Judge) were guilty of
    contempt of court, there is a crystallized finding that the respondent
    herein was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect
    from 2021.
18. The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench,
    in paragraph 52, noted the submission of the respondent that the
    judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystallizing
    any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined
    to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed
    a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24
    December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission
    and observed that “in view of our understanding of the impugned
    judgment, as noted above, the learned Single Judge has not decided
    any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties” other
    than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. The judgment of the
    Division Bench lost sight of the fact that whether the appeal was
    maintainable would have to be construed on a plain reading of the
    judgment of the Single Judge. Two aspects were covered by the
    judgment of the Single Judge :
     Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the
     order dated 24 December 2019; and
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                            1053

               Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Dixit


     Secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank
     of IG.
     The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at
     the present stage. The finding that the respondent was entitled to
     promotion to the rank of IG would be amenable to an appeal in terms
     of the law laid down by this Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
     Bank Ltd. (supra), more particularly in paragraph 11(V) which has
     been extracted above.
19. For the above reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and
    order of the Division Bench dated 10 May 2024 and restore Letters
    Patent Appeal 157 of 2024 in Contempt Case No 198 of 2020 together
    with the associated interlocutory applications to the file of the Division
    Bench for consideration on merits in terms of the above directions.
20. Mr Sanjay Ghosh, senior counsel appearing for the respondent states
    that no coercive steps would be taken against the appellants till the
    next date of listing before the High Court of Delhi.
21. All the contentions of the parties on the merits of the Letters Patent
    Appeal are kept open.
22. The Delhi High Court may consistent with the exigencies of work,
    take up the Letters Patent Appeal for expeditious disposal.
23. The Appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms.
24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)