"Wrong Message Should Not Be Sent To Officers" - Madras HC Orders 2 Weeks Imprisonment Against IAS Officer For Failing To Implement Court Order

A Madras High Court Bench at Madurai comprising Justice Battu Devanand has sentenced an IAS officer, along with two others, to two weeks' imprisonment and fined Rs. 1000 each in a contempt case. The Court found them guilty of not complying with previous court orders.

The officer, during his tenure as the Principal Secretary to the School Education Department, had failed to implement the court's directives. Refusing the accept the unconditional apology tendered by the officers, the Court observed that, "if any lenient view is taken against such type of officers, who are not implementing the orders of this Court, years together, and implementing Court orders only after directing their appearance before the Court, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government officers."

Senior Counsel K Ragatheeshkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Counsel J Ravindran appeared for the respondent.

In this case, one Gnana Pragasam filed a contempt petition against an IAS officer, the Director of Teacher Education Research and Training Education, the Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training, and the Correspondent of Oliyasthanam Teacher Training Institute. The argument was that these respondents failed to comply with a previous court order that directed Pragasam's service to be regularized from 01.04.1979, along with providing monetary benefits within eight weeks. Pragasam claimed that his service was regularized only in March 19, 2021, and he did not receive the monetary benefits as ordered by the court. Consequently, Pragasam sought punishment for the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for willfully disobeying the court's order.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that they had filed a writ appeal against the Single Judge's order, and after the appeal was dismissed, they immediately regularized Pragasam's services and settled the monetary benefits in line with others in similar positions, starting from 30.06.2006. They argued that there was no willful disobedience on their part.

On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court made the observation that the unconditional apology rendered was not bonafide, and therefore, not acceptable. The Court placed reliance on the case of Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab in the same regard.

Subsequently, the Court found the respondents liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Cause Title: P. Gnana Pragasam vs Pradeep Yadav & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment