Manipur High Court
Shri. Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla on 12 March, 2021
Yumk Digitally signed
by Yumkham
Rother
ham Date:
2021.03.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Rother 13:46:20
+05'30'
AT IMPHAL
CONT CAS(C) No. 8 of 2021
Shri. Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, CT/GD No. 941150344 CRPF aged
about 48 Years, S/O M. Jugindro Singh, resident of Tronglaobi Awang
Lekai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur District, Manipur. PIN - 795116.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla, IAS, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block Shastri Bhavan, Government of India, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Shri. AP. Maheshwari, IPS, Director General of Police, CRPF
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3. Shri. Ansuman Yadav, IPS, IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector
CRPF, Langjing, Imphal, PIN CODE: 795113.
4. Shri. Ravindra Singh Rautela, DIG Range, CRPF, M & N Sector,
Langjing, Imphal, PIN CODE: 795113.
5. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Commandant 27 Bn, CRPF, Bawana,
New Delhi, New Delhi-110039.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate
For the respondent : Nil.
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2021
Date of Order : 12.03.2021
O R D E R
(CAV)
Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 1
[2] The present contempt case had been filed for the alleged willful
disobedience of the directions given by a Division Bench of the Gauhati
High Court, Imphal Bench, in this Judgment and order dated 27.07.2010
passed in W.A. No. 30 of 2005.
[3] The relevant facts of the present case in a nutshell are that while
the petitioner was serving as a constable in the CRPF, the respondents
initiated a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner on 18.04.2000 and
on the basis of the said Departmental Enquiry he was dismissed from
service on 30.08.2000.
Having been aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said dismissal
order dated 30.08.2000 by filing W.P. (C) No. 297 of 2002 before the
Gauhati High Court.
[4] The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge
of the Gauhati High Court by quashing the disciplinary proceeding
against the petitioner as well as the impugned dismissal order dated
30.08.2000 and also by directing the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith, vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2005
passed in W.P. (C) No. 297 of 2002.
The learned Single Judge further made it clear that the authority
shall decide and take appropriate decision about the pay and allowances
of the writ petitioner for the period from the date of passing the impugned
dismissal order dated 30.08.2000 till his reinstatement under order of the
Court.
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 2
[5] Having been not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge, the respondents filed a writ appeal being
W.A. No. 30 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench
challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The said writ appeal was disposed of by a judgment and order dated
27.07.2010 passed in W.A. No. 30 of 2005 by rejecting the prayer for
setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. However,
the appellate Court made a slight modification in the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under:
"Since the said order dated 30.08.2000, 08.11.2000 and
12.02.2001, having not been quashed on the ground that the
charges against the respondent-writ petitioner have not been
made out but on the finding that the proceedings have not
been proceeded fairly complying with the principles of natural
justice, nothing prevents the concerned authority from
initiating a fresh enquiry against the respondent-writ petitioner
in respect of the charges fairly and in compliance with the
principles of natural justice within a reasonable time which is
not to be more than four months from today. If fresh
departmental proceeding/ enquiry is held against the
respondent-writ petitioner, he shall be treated as under
suspension from the date of the first suspension. If no such
enquiry is held within the prescribed period, the respondent-
writ petitioner is to be reinstated to his service and appropriate
order shall be passed by the concerned authority regarding
his entitlements under the law."
[6] In purported compliance of the aforesaid judgments and orders
passed by the Gauhati High Court and in view of the initiation of contempt
proceedings against the respondents, the Commandant 27Bn, CRPF
issued an office order dated 31.12.2010 reinstating the petitioner in
service conditionally from the date of reporting without any back wages
and subject to the outcome of the SLP ready to be filed against the
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 3
judgments and orders passed by the Gauhati High Court. It was also
ordered that the petitioner will be kept under suspension and the
intervening period between the date of dismissal and date of
reinstatement shall be regularized on receipt of decision from the Hon'ble
Court.
[7] Pursuant to the above office order dated 31.12.2010, the
Commandant, 27Bn CRPF issued an office order dated 24.01.2011
placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f 21.01.2011. Subsequently,
the Commandant 27Bn CRPC issued another office order dated
20.04.2011 revoking the suspension order of the petitioner w.e.f.
20.04.2011 subject to the final outcome of the SLP filed by the Union of
India.
[8] Later on the Civil Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2012 filed
against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court was dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated 08.06.2018.
The relevant portions of the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2012 are as under:
"The High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against
the respondent. As a consequence thereof, the respondent
has been reinstated provisionally and has been so working for
the last six years.
In the circumstances, we do not find it necessary to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court
but it is made clear that the appellant will be at liberty to pass
an order, after following the due process of law, for imposing
minor penalty against the respondent. We are thus not
considering the issue raised that even if appointment of
presenting officer was necessary, the High Court should not
have interfered with the disciplinary action in absence of
prejudice to the respondent. The appeal is dismissed
accordingly."
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 4
[9] After dismissal of the said Civil Appeal by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and in compliance with the directions given by the Gauhati High Court in
this judgment and order dated 27.07.2010 passed in W.A. No. 30 of 2005
and order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2012, the authority conducted the Departmental
Enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of the said Departmental
Enquiry, the Commandant 27Bn, CRPF issued an order dated
12.09.2019 imposing upon the petitioner minor penalty for stoppage of
annual increment for 3 years without cumulative effect.
[10] It is the case of the petitioner that his service from 30.08.2000 (the
date of his dismissal from service) to 21.01.2011 (the date of his
suspension after reinstatement) was not kept under suspension as
directed by the Gauhati High Court in this judgment and order dated
27.07.2010 passed in W.A. (C) No. 30 of 2005 and accordingly, it is
submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the respondents
have willfully violated the directions given by the Appellate Court of the
Gauhati High Court. Hence, the present contempt petition has been filed
praying for compelling the respondents to comply with the directions
given by the Gauhati High Court and to punish the respondents for the
allege willful violation of the Court's order.
[11] The present contempt case has been filed only on 15.01.2021,
after lapse of about 11 years from the date of the judgment and order,
allege to have been violated or disobeyed. That too, only on the ground
that the directions for treating the petitioner to be under suspension from
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 5
the date of his first suspension in the event of fresh Departmental Enquiry
being held against him has not been complied with.
[12] Under section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is
provided as under:
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt. - No court shall
initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion
or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the
date on which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed."
In the present case, as per submission advance by the counsel for
the petitioner and the pleadings made by the petitioner at paragraph 11
of the contempt petition as well as the documents annexed thereto, more
particularly office order dated 24.01.2011 issued by the Commandant,
27Bn, CRPF placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 21.01.2011, in
our considered view the contempt is alleged to have been committed
w.e.f. 24.01.2011 on which date the authorities disobeyed the directions
given by the Gauhati High Court in its judgment and order dated
27.07.2010 for treating the petitioner to be under suspension from the
date of his first suspension.
As the present contempt case has been filed after lapse of 10
years from the date the contempt has been alleged to have been
committed, we are of the considered view that the present contempt case
is not maintainable in view of the bar imposed by section 20 of the
contempt Courts Act, 1971.
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 6
[13] Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
strenuously submitted that in the case of "Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian
and Ors., reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549 (supra)", the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while interpreting sections 20 of the Contempt Courts
Act, 1971 has held that the limitation of the period of one year as
mentioned in section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act can be counted
from the date of knowledge of committing such contempt. Accordingly,
the learned counsel submitted that the present contempt petition is
maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner come to know about the
commission of the contempt only after issuance of the order dated
12.09.2019 imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner.
[14] We cannot accept the submission advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner on two counts. Firstly, in the case of "Pallav
Sheth Vs. Custodian and Ors. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 549
(supra)", the Apex Court in Paragraph 38 of the said judgment
categorically held as under:
"38. The Rules so framed by all the courts in India do show
that proceedings are initiated inter alia with the filing of an
application or a petition in that behalf. If, however,
proceedings are not initiated by filing of an application within
a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is
alleged to have been committed then the court shall not have
jurisdiction to punish for contempt. If, on the other hand,
proceedings are properly initiated by the filing of an
application, in the case of civil contempt like the present
before the Court within the period of limitation then the
provisions of section 20 will not stand in the way of the court
exercising its jurisdiction."
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 7
Secondly, it is an undeniable fact that the petitioner has all along
knowledge about the issuance of the office order dated 24.01.2011
placing him under suspension w.e.f. from 21.01.2011. In this view of the
matter it is too late now to allege that the petitioner has no knowledge
about the alleged commission of the contempt by the respondents till
issuance of the order dated 12.09.2019 imposing minor penalty upon
him.
[15] In view of the peculiar fact and circumstances of the present case
and our observations and findings made herein above, we are of the
considered view that the present contempt petition is hit by the bar
imposed under section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
accordingly, we closed the present contempt case, however, without any
cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sapana
Cont Case No. 8 of 2021 Page 8
