Holding

The Supreme Court held that the CAT erred in convicting the appellant for contempt; in the circumstances, contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked and the conviction was set aside.

Summary

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordered a fresh seniority list on 3 November 1999 without fixing a time‑limit for compliance. The Director of Education complied on 27 October 2000, while the order was simultaneously challenged before the Delhi High Court under Article 226. Despite the compliance and the pending writ petition, the CAT initiated contempt proceedings on 24 August 2000 and later convicted the Director for delay, rejecting his apology. The Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and that, in the absence of a stipulated deadline and with the order under judicial review, the Director could not be held guilty of contempt. It set aside the CAT’s contempt order, exonerated the appellant, and ordered the fine to be refunded.

Issues considered

Whether the CAT could hold the appellant guilty of contempt for delay in implementing its order when no time‑limit was prescribed.
Whether the pending challenge of the CAT order before the High Court bars the exercise of contempt jurisdiction.
Whether an apology tendered by the alleged contemnor must be accepted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether the CAT correctly applied Sections 12 and 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 17
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 13

Subjects

contempt of courtadministrative tribunalseniority orderdelay in complianceapologyjudicial gracesparingly exercised contempt jurisdiction

Judgment

A SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR
v.
DHANI RAM AND ORS.

DECEMBER 6, 2001

B [K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/Colllempt of Cowts Act, 1971 :

S.17/ss.12 and 13-'Central Administrative Tribunal-Exercise of con-
temptjurisdiction-ln a seniority matter Tribunal passed order on 3.11.1999-
c No time limit fixed by Tribunal for compliance of order-Department seeking
legal advice and .filing writ petition in Hifih Court-Notice issued in writ
petition oH 24. 10.2000-Meanivhile conte111pt tu.:tinn initiated and not[ce issued
therein-Order complied with on 27.10.2000 and Tribunal informed-Apolofiy
tendered tumed down-Tribunal holding the officer guilty of contempt of court
D a.\' there ivas delay in if11ple1nenting the order-Held, contempt jurisdiction not
to be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases-Courts
should not.feel unduly touchy when they are told that the orders have not been
implemellled.forthwith-]f the court is told that its direction has been complied
with subsequently, albeit qfter receipt of notice of contempt, courts are expected
to shoH.1 judicial grace and 1nagnanilnity in deaUng with the action for con-
E
tempt-Court should be generous in discharging a contemner if he tenders an
apology to the .rnti~faction of the court-On/er of Tiibunal set aside-Q(ficer
exonerated totally from the action of contempt of l'OUJ'(.

Principal Rajni Parekh Arts, K.B. Commerce and B.C.J. Science Col-
p lege, Khambhat and Anr. v. Mahendra Ambalal Shah, [1986) 2 SCC 560,
distinguished.

L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1997) 3 SCC 261,
referred !o.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 535 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.2000 of the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal New Delhi in C.P. No. 318/2000 in O.A. No. 195 of 1996.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms.
H Shally Bhasin, Rishi Maheshwari and Rahul Gupta for the Appellant.
498

'I
SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR v. DHANl RAM 499
The following Order of the Court was delivered : A

This is an instance of how a Tribunal vested with the powers to punish
for Contempt of Court became over sensitive in using such powers. Time and
..1
again this Court has cautioned as to when and in what circumstances Contempt
of Court jurisdiction is to be exercised. Such a power is not intended to be
exercised as a matter of course. Courts should not feel unduly touchywhen B
they are told that the orders have not been implemented forthwith. If the court
• is told ihat the direction or the order of the Court has been complied with
subsequently, albeit"after receipt of notice of contempt, we except the courts
to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with. the action for con-
tempt. c
The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi,
has now convicted the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi
under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 2000
as per the impugned order. The Bench held that the appellant is guilty of D
contempt, not because he did not implement the order passed by the Tribunal
but because there was delay in implementing the order.

The order of the Tribunal which is said to have been belatedly complied
with was passed on 3rd November, 1999, the operative portion of which reads
E
thus :

"For the foregoing reasons, the present O.A. succeeds. The seniority
list published by respondents I to 3 on 21st November, 1995 in so far
as the same shows respondents 4 and 5 senior to applicants is set aside.
Respondents I to 3 are now directed to publish a fresh seniority list F
in the light of the observations contained in the present judgment and
grant the applicants their due seniority over that of respondents 4 and
5 and grant them further consequential reliefs they may be entitled to
under rules. There shall, however, in the facts and circumstances of this
case be no order as to costs."
G
What is discernible from the said operative portion is that the Tribunal
did not fix up a time limit within which the said direction has to be complied
with. The contempt action was taken against the appellant on 24th August,
2000. Appellant submitted in the reply before the Tribunal that the order of the
Tribunal was being challenged before the High Court of Delhi under Article H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 226 of the Constitution of India and a Division Bench of the High Court had
admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the opposite parties on 24th
October, 2000. Despite the pendency of the said writ petition, appellant in-
formed the Tribunal that the direction of the Tribunal was complied with on
27th October, 2000 itself.
B There is no dispute that the appellant has complied with the order of the
Tribunal on 27th October, 2000. There is no dispute that appellants had chal-
lenged the said order before the High Court. Ever since the order of the
•
Tribunal was passed, speedy steps have been taken by the Department. Con-
sultations were in progress between the Department and the Secretary (Law and
c Judicial) and on their instructions the letter was addressed to the Government's
counsel and on his advise, further steps were taken and ultimately the Depart·
ment moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All
these things have been stated by the appellant in full details before the Tribunal.
In spite of all those submissions and in spite of the Tribunal being told that even
during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, they imple-
D mented the order so as to avert any possible action against them for contempt,
the Tribunal has chosen to convict the appellant and sentenced him to a fine
of Rs. 2000.

We may also point out that the appellant, when called upon by the
Tribunal to appear in person, tendered an apology even after showing all the
E
steps taken for challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd November,
1999. the Tribunal simply turned down the apology of the appellant for the
following reasonings :·

"The Tribunal's orders arc definitely subject to scrutiny of the High
F Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the orders of the
Tribunal are passed for compliance and not to be thrown aside to gather
dust. They have to be respected with an expedition. Question the order,
if you take a decision to do so promptly and should be filed at the latest
within three months and if one does not succeed there, one has to abide
by the order and comply with the same, at the latest by six months. Any
G delay thereafter would have to be treated as wilful violation. If the
orders are not respected it would destroy the confidence of the people
in the courts and if such an object was achieved it would be a great
public disaster."

H The Tribunal quoted the following observation of this Court in Principal
SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR v. DHANI RAM SOI
Rajni Parekh Arts, K.B. Commerce and B.C.J. Science College, Khambhat and A
Anr. v. Mahendra Ambalal Shah, [1986] 2 SCC 560 :-

"If any court is to accept an apology of a contemner tendered at a late
stage, it would encourage litigants to flout the orders of courts with
impunity".
B
The background in which the said observation was made had been
overlooked and applied it in a different situtation.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has indicated a caution
that while dealing with the powers of contempt, the court should be generous c
in discharging the contemner if he tenders an apology to the satisfaction of the
Court. In the present case the apology tendered was found to be not genuine
by the Tribunal. We are dismayed, if not distressed, that despite delineating on
all the steps adopted by the appellant for challenging the order of the Tribunal
before the High Court and despite the fact that the appellant had implemented D
the order even though there was no time schedule to do so, the Tribunal has
chosen to depict the apology tendered by the appellant as one without contri·
tion.

Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act says that notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose E
a sentence "unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it
substcmtially intei;ferts, or tends subsra111i11lly lo inte1:fert with the due course
of justke." (emphasis supplied).

Even if appellant had not implemented the order and if the appellant had F
brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the order of the Tribunal is under
challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
(the course which has been judicially recognised by a seven Judge Bench of
this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Qf lm/i11 1111d Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 261
the Tribunal should have been slow to proceed against the party in a contempt
action. Of course it can be said that no stay was granted by the Court. when G
the appellant moved the Division Bench of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution. Not granting the stay by itself is not enough to speed up
proceedings against a person in contempt because the very order is yet to
become final. At any rate the Tribunal should have directed the appellant to
implement the direction, in the absence of the stay order from the High Court, H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A within a time frame fixed by it. We would have appreciated if the Tribunal had
done so and then considered whether action should be taken in the event of the
non implementation of the order after the expiry of the said time frame.

We have chosen to say so much in this case to give a message to the
Tribunal that contempt jurisdiction ·is not to be exercised. casually but only
B sparingly and in very deserving cases. It is appropriate to bear in mind the.
adage "It is good to have the power of giant, but not good to use it always."

For the aforesaid reasons we set aside-the impugned order of the Tribunal
and exonerate the appellant totally from the actions for contempt of court. The
fine, if any remitted, shall be refunded to him.
c
R.P. Apeal disposed of.