Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court's division bench order of May 10, 2024 which declined to entertain a letters patent appeal against a single judge bench order holding that it was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra restored the appeal before the division bench for consideration on merits.

The court, however, emphasised, "An appeal under Section 19 of Contempt Of Court Act lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt."

The matter related to promotion of Pawan Kumar Dixit, senior officer of the CRPF, who was removed from service in July, 1995 due to alleged acts of misconduct.

On a writ petition, the division bench on December 24, 2019 set aside the order of removal of Dixit on October 16, 2018.

He was reinstated in service by an order on March 8, 2021. The respondent was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on a notional post with effect from October 17, 2021 by an order on March 22, 2023. He superannuated from service on March 31, 2023. 

He instituted a contempt proceedings, in which Single Judge in an order on June 2, 2023, noted the submission of the respondent that even if the date of implementation of the minor penalty was from October 16, 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on March 31, 2021.

The Single Judge proceeded to hold that there was a willful disobedience of the directions which were issued by the division bench with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion. 

The Single Judge held the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) and DIG (Personnel) who held office as on March 22, 2023 guilty of contempt of court for willful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of the division bench on December 24, 2019. 

The Single Judge granted an opportunity to the appellants to follow the order for promotion of the respondent within six weeks.

The division bench, however, held the letters patent appeal was not maintainable since no punishment has been imposed in the matter.

It had also noted the observations made by the Single Judge were not to be construed as crystallising any right in favour of the respondent. 

The issue before the apex court was whether the letters oatent appeal against the order of the Single Judge of June 2, 2023 was maintainable.

The bench, however, pointed out the law has been settled in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop Bank Ltd and Others Vs Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006), holding an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies only against 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)," the bench quoted the previous judgment.

In the instant case, the bench said, "Reading the entirety of the order of the Single Judge, it is clear that besides holding that the appellants who we the respondents before the Single Judge) were guilty of contempt of court, there is a crystallised finding that the respondent herein was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect from 2021."

The court said the judgment of the division bench lost sight of the fact that whether the appeal was maintainable would have to be construed on a plain reading of the judgment of the Single Judge. 

Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order of December 24, 2019; and secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG, the bench noted.

"The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at the present stage. The finding that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG would be amenable to an appeal in terms of the law laid down," the bench said.

The court therefore restored the matter before the division bench with a request to take it up expeditiously, consistent with exigencies of work.