Satyawan vs Krishna Bahadur Upadhyay
2015 Latest Caselaw 2196 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 26 of 2003
 

 
Appellant :- Satyawan
 
Respondent :- Krishna Bahadur Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Appellant :- K.P. Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

This contempt appeal has come up after 12 years of its filing.

The appellant was the then Regional Joint Director of Education, who was directed to decide a rival dispute of a Committee of Management vide judgment of this Court dated 10th April, 2003.

The officer appears to have completed the hearing on 25th June, 2003 but orders were not delivered. When Contempt Application No. 2970 of 2003 was filed, upon issuance of notices, the order was passed by the officer on 4th November, 2003. When the contempt application came up for final hearing, a learned Single Judge after having noticed the above facts, observed that prima facie a contempt has been committed by not strictly obeying with the order dated 10th April, 2003. However, the court instead of punishing the appellant under section 12 of the 1971 Act disposed of the contempt petition by directing that he will deposit Rs. 5,000/- as damages, and the Director of Education was further directed to deduct the aforesaid amount from the salary of the appellant.

The said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2003 is under appeal before us.

The Division Bench that entertained this appeal, admitted the same and stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with the other provisions thereof makes a provision for punishment after holding a contemnor guilty of charges and provides for a maximum punishment by way of imprisonment for six months and in addition thereto a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. There is no other mode of punishment or statutory power conferred on the court so as to impose damages on a prima facie finding of guilt.

The learned Single Judge did not finally hold the appellant to be guilty nor was the appellant  punished, as is evident from a perusal of the judgment itself.

In the wake of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any justification for imposition of damages to be deducted from the salary of the appellant without holding the appellant to be guilty of having committed the contempt. A prima facie opinion is not an order of conviction on satisfaction that the charge was proved.

Consequently, we set aside the said direction of imposition of Rs. 5,000/- damages and deduction of salary as directed by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms.

Order Date :- 8.9.2015

SR