Appeal U/S 19 Contempt of Courts Act Lies Only Against Order Imposing Punishment: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.
The bench of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra relied on the two Judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others and quoted, “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…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).”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghosh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for alleged misconduct during his tenure as Officer Commanding in CRPF, leading to his removal from service. After his appeal against the punishment was rejected, the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the High Court ruled in the respondent's favour, leading to contempt proceedings against authorities. The High Court found willful disobedience of its directions regarding pay fixation, seniority, and consequential benefits, including promotion. Subsequently, a Single Judge held the Inspector General and DIG in contempt for failing to comply with the Division Bench's judgment and warned of potential sentencing if appropriate orders for the respondent's promotion to IG were not issued. This led to the filing of a Letter Patent Appeal by the petitioners.
The Court considered the question of whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge was maintainable and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and observed, “it is a settled principle that an appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.”
The Court noted that the Single bench besides holding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of court, found that the respondent was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect from 2021 of which aspect the Division bench lost sight.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench and restored the Letters Patent Appeal.
Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar dixit (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 575)
