Criminal Appeal No 79 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 5101983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Original Contempt Petition No 27 of 1983
RK Garg Mahabir Singh and SSrinivasan for the Appellant
Kapil Sibal RN Karanjawala Mrs MKaranjawalaand Ejaz Maqbool for theRespondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
This appeal under section 191 of the Contempt of Courts Act hereinafter referred to as the Act  is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab  Haryana High Court dismissing the application for contempt filed by the appellant against Shri Bhajan Lal who was then the Chief Minister of the State
In the application for contempt it was inter alia alleged by the appellant that one Shri Devinder Sharma was a Forest Minister in the Council of Ministers headed by Shri Bhajan Lal
The said Devinder Sharma was defeated in the legislative assembly election held in 1982
Shri Bhajan Lal because of his political and personal relations with Shri Devinder Sharma was personally very keen on giving him an office of profit
In order to achieve this objective Bhajan Lal got an Ordinance being Ordinance No 44 of 1982 promulgated by the Governor
The Ordinance inter alia provided the constitution of a Forest Development Board
According to the appellant such Board was constituted with a view to appointing the said Devinder Sharma as its Chairman
It was further alleged by the appellant that the constitutional validity of the said Ordinance was challenged by twelve Indian Forest Officers including the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court
It was alleged that the respondent Bhajan Lal through Shri RK Vashisth the Superintendent of Police pressurised and threatened the writ petitioners to withdraw the said writ petition and pursuant to that eleven officers withdrew from the petition
It was only the appellant who continued to prosecute the writ petition and as a consequence of which the appellant was transferred from the Forest Expert Special Project Cell to the Forest Department Haryana on 891 March 18 1983
The further allegation of the appellant was that after having failed to threaten and demoralise the appellant through indirect means the respondent Bhajan Lal called him to his official residence on July 26 1983 through the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests and criminally intimidated him to withdraw the writ petition
Thereafter the appellant filed an application for contempt against the respondent Bhajan Lal in the High Court complaining of interference by the respondent with the due course of judicial proceedings
The application was admitted and a rule nisi was issued upon the respondent
The respondent appeared in the rule and opposed the same by filing an affidavit denying all the allegations made against him by the appellant
The learned Single Judge of the High Court after considering the application affidavits and the submissions made on behalf of the parties took the view that there were circumstances to indicate that it was not a fit case in which the court should exercise its jurisdiction under the Act
In that view of the matter the learned Judge dismissed the application and discharged the rule nisi
It is apparent from the facts stated above that the allegations made by the appellant if proved would consitute a criminal contempt
It is also not disputed by the parties that it was a case of criminal contempt as defined in section 2c of the Act
The scope and ambit of this judgment will therefore be confined to criminal contempt
Mr Sibbal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal under section 191 of the Act
It is contended by him that as no punishment was imposed on the respondent by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt section 191 is inapplicable and the appeal is incompetent
Section 191 provides as follows 191
An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt a where the order or decision is that of a single judge to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court 892 b where the order or decision is that of a Bench to the Supreme Court
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court
 The right of appeal will be available under sub section 1 of section 19 only against any decision or order of a High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt
In this connection it is pertinent to refer to the provision of Article 215 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself
Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself
In other words the High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt from Article 215 of the Constitution
As has been noticed earlier an appeal will lie under section 191 of the Act only when the High Court makes an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent and in our opinion rightly that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution when it imposes a punishment for contempt
When the High Court does not impose any punishment on the alleged contemnor the High Court does not exercise its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt
The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish
When no punishment is imposed by the High Court it is difficult to say that the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction or power as conferred on it by Article 215 of the Constitution
It is however strenuously urged by Mr RK Garg learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that when the High Court acquits a contemnor after hearing the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court does so also in the exercise of its jurisdiction as conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution
Counsel submits that jurisdiction to punish for contempt includes also the jurisdiction to dispose of the case either by punishing the contemnor or by acquitting him
In support of the contention much reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant on a decision of this Court in Smt
Ujjam Bai vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 1 SCR 778 wherein SK Das J observed jurisdiction means authority to decide Relying upon the said observation it is submitted by Mr Garg that the jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for contempt also includes the jurisdiction to decide whether such punishment 893 should be imposed or not and when the High Court comes to the finding that such punishment should not be imposed on the contemnor or that no contempt has been committed by the alleged contemnor and acquits him such decision of the High Court acquitting the contemnor is made in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt
We are unable to accept this contention
The said observation in our opinion should not be read dehors the context in which it was made
In that case the Sales Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the petitioner to exemption from payment of Sales Tax under a certain notification
An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Court of the Judge Appeals Sales Tax Allahabad was dismissed
The question that came up for consideration before this Court was whether a writ of certiorari could be issued for quashing the order of Assessment on the ground that the authority concerned had erroneously exercised its jurisdiction by not granting exemption to the petitioner
In that context the said observations was made and which was immediately followed by further observation Whenever a judicial or quasi judicial tribunal is empowered or required to enquire into a question of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision on it its findings thereon cannot be impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until reversed on appeal
Where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion whether it is wrong in law or in fact
 There can be no doubt that whenever a court tribunal or authority is vested with a jurisdiction to decide a matter such jurisdiction can be exercised in deciding the matter in favour or against a person
For example a civil court is conferred with the jurisdiction to decide a suit the civil court will have undoubtedly the jurisdiction to decree the suit or dismiss the same
But when a court is conferred with the power or jurisdiction to act in a particular manner the exercise of jurisdiction or the power will involve the acting in that particular manner and in no other
Article 215 confers jurisdiction or power on the High Court to punish for contempt
The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction only by punishing for contempt
It is true that in considering a question whether the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt or not the court hears the parties and considers the materials produced before it and if necessary examines witnesses and thereafter passes an order either acquitting or punishing him for contempt
When the High Court acquits the contemnor the High Court does not exercise its jurisdic 894 tion for contempt for such exercise will mean that the High Court should act in a particular manner that is to say by imposing punishment for contempt
So long as no punishment is imposed by the High Court the High Court cannot be said to be exercising its jurisdiction or power to punish for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution
It does not however mean that when the High Court erroneously acquits a contemnor guilty of criminal contempt the petitioner who is interested in maintaining the dignity of the court will not be without any remedy
Even though no appeal is maintainable under section 191 of the Act the petitioner in such a case can move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
Therefore the contention as advanced on behalf of the appellant that there would be no remedy against the erroneous or perverse decision of the High Court in not exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt is not correct
But in such a case there would be no right of appeal under section 191 as there is no exercise of jurisdiction or power by the High Court to punish for contempt
The view which we take finds support from a decision of this Court in Paradakanta Mishra vs Mr Justice Gatikrushna Mishra  Right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the question whether there is a right of appeal or not will have to be considered on an interpretation of the provision of the statute and not on the ground of porpriety or any other consideration
In this connection it may be noticed that there was no right of appeal under the 
It is for the first time that under section 191 of the Act a right of appeal has been provided for
A contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor
Any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court
After furnishing such information he may still assist the court but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties namely the court and the contemnor
It may be one of the reasons which weighed with the Legislature in not conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt
The aggrieved party under section 191 can only be the contemnor who has been punished for contempt of court
For the reasons aforesaid there is substance in the preliminary objection raised as to the maintainability of the appeal
In our view the appeal is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed
There will however be no order as to costs
HSK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Shri Markandey Singh the appellant in the first appeal had joined the UP State Service as Deputy Superintendent of Police by passing a competitive examination
In November 1953 he joined on deputation the Union Territory of Delhi which at that time had no police service of its own
While on deputation and again in 1959 60 he officiated as Superintendent of Police but was reverted back for administrative reasons
In July 1960 Himachal Pradesh Indian Police Service was created and thereafter the Delhi Himachal Pradesh Police Service in March 1961
On 6th December 1961 Shri Singh was again promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police
During the period of his officiation his request for being absorbed in the Himachal Pradesh State Police Service was accepted and he was absorbed in the State Service with effect from 27th November 1962
He was confirmed in the Union Territory Cadre of IPS with effect from 14th May 1964
He was assigned 1958 as the year of allotment
He made a representation against the order of allotment to the Central Government claiming the benefit of officiation from 6th December 1961 to 13th May 1963 in the matter of fixation of his year of allotment
The Central Government rejected the representation by order dt
23rd April 1970 which stated that in accordance with the orders contained in letter NO
1262 Delhi IDHS dated 2381963 of the Home Ministry all cadre posts held by non cadre officers not on the Select List were deemed to have been kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September 1961 onwards and according to the seniority rules the service rendered by an officer prior to his inclusion in the Select List could not be counted for seniority 848 unless approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission under the Second Proviso to rule 33b of the Seniority Rules
The requisite approval was not there
Shri Singh made a second representation on 23rd June 1970
The Central Government by order dt
21st June 1973 accepted the second representation gave the benefit of officiation in question and assigned to him 1956 as the year of allotment
The reason why the second representation was accepted was that in November 1972 the Union Public Service Commission had approved of the officiation of Shri Singh in the IPS cadre for the relevant period under the second proviso to rule 33b of the Seniority Rules as they stood in May 1963
 In consequence he was placed above Shri ML Bhanot respondent in the gradation list of Union Territory of IPS Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Government Shri Bhanot filed a writ petition before the High Court
A Single Judge allowed the same and quashed the order dt
21st June 1973
Against the judgment of the Single Judge two appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the High Court one by Shri Singh and the second by the Union of India
Both the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court Shri Singh and the Union of India filed these two appeals for relief in this Court
Dismissing the appeals with directions the Court  HELD The question involved in the appeals was whether the year of allotment given to Shri Singh as 1958 was correct or not and whether the order of the High Court quashing the year of allotment given to Shri Singh as 1956 was bad or not
This depended upon the interpretation of the various rules and provisions and the determination of the question whether an officer was entitled to the benefit of the service rendered by him in a senior post in the IPS cadre of a particulare State while he was on deputation to the State Police Service of that State from another State for the purpose of working out the year of allotment in accordance with the second proviso to unamended rule 33b of the Indian Police Service Regulation of Seniority Rules The Seniority Rules 
855D F Rule 33b of the Seniority Rules and the provisos thereto should not be read in isolation
This rule is in the setting of other rules
The Indian Police Service Cadre Rules The Cadre Rules  read with the Indian Police Service Fixation of Cadre Strength Regulations of 1955 849 fixed the strength of the Indian Police cadre of the Union Territories at a particular figure
Out of them not more than 25 officers eligible for recruitment to the IPS cadre had to be substantive members of the State UP Police Service at that time
The scheme as it stood fixed the strength of the IPS cadre State wise
Recruitment by promotion thereto could only be from the substantive members of the Police Service of that particular State
So long as Shri Singh remained as a substantive member of the UP State Police Service he could not possibly be promoted to the joint IPS Cadre of the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh
He became eligible to his promotion to the Union Territory IPS cadre only after he had been absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service
Proviso 1 to Rule 33b of the Recruitment Rules gives a clear indication that for determining the year of allotment ad hoc the Central Government consulted the State Government concerned
In Explanation 2 again there is a reference to a certificate by the State Government concerned that an officer would have officiated in a senior post but for his absence on leave or appointment to any special post
It is apparent therefore that the State Government is the Government of the Police Service of which the officer concerned is a substantive member
In this case as found by the Division Bench of the High Court Shri Singh had not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service and he had gone back to his parent State of UP
In case Shri Singh had not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Service and had gone back to his parent State of UP then according the Explanation 2 the UP State Government might have issued the certificate to facilitate his promotion to the IPS Cadre of the UP State
The Promotion Regulations of 1955 laid down the determination of the eligibility of a substantive member of the State Police Service
Thereafter the names of the eligible officers were brought on the Select List who were to be approved by the Public Service Commission
Appointments by promotion to the IPS cadre are made from the Select List
In the event of promotion but for the second proviso the benefit of continuous officiation on a senior post for fixing his year of allotment is given to an officer from the date after his being nominated on the State List
In Explanation 1 of rule 33 there is no mention that deputationist before his absorption in the State Police Service can get the benefit of such officiation
Therefore it was not possible to accept the position that before his absorption Shri Singh was entitled to the benefit of his officiation
The Division Bench of the High Court so held
The Division Bench was right on this aspect of the matter
861D H862A D The Seniority Rules 1954 including rule 33b were amended with 850 effect from 22nd April 1967
Before the amendment the appellant Shri Singh had been confirmed in the Union Territory cadre of the Indian Police Service with effect from 14th May 1964 and had been allotted 1958 as the year
The question of allotment of Shri Singh in accordance with the Seniority Rules had ripened before the amendment of 1967
There is no rule vitiating the operation of the old seniority rules
Reliance was placed by the appellant Shri Singh on the decision of this Court in Arun Ranjan Mukharjee vs Union of India  Ors  and the appellant submitted that Division Bench was in error in not following the ratio of the decision in that case
The Court could not accept this submission
862D E863C In this case the Central Government had not fixed the date of appellant s absorption in the Select List as 1958 out of the hat so to say
It had relevance as it appeared from the basis of the order of the Central Government
The appellant who was a deputationist before the absorption in the State Police Service could not be entitled to get such officiation
In case Shri Singh had not chosen to be absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh State Police Service and had gone back to his parent State of UP then according to explanation 2 the UP State Government might have issued the certificate to facilitate his promotion to the IPS cadre of the UP State
But so long as Shri Singh remained a substantive member of the UP State Police Service he could not possibly be permitted to join IPS cadre of the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh
In accordance with the rules he became eligible to his promotion to the Union Territory IPS cadre only after he had been absorbed in the Delhi Himachal Pradesh Police Service
864F H The rules with which the Court was concerned which state that certain year should be assigned by the Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission must be interpreted in the light of the well established rule of construction that if the words of a statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound these words in their natural and ordinary sense the words themselves in such a case best declaring the intention of the legislature
See in this connection the observations of this Court in The Collector of Customs Baroda vs Digvijaysinhji Spinning  Weaving Mills Ltd   899
865A B The officiation in a senior post is one of the indispensable ingredients in the application of rule 33b
But it must be borne in mind that this was not a sine qua non
In this case before the absorption of 851 the appellant in the Himachal Pradesh Delhi IPS cadre his officiation had not been taken by the Central Government into consideration
The Court could not say that the Central Government had not acted properly
865E F This appeal was not concerned with the assignment of year 1958 to Shri Singh but rule 16 clause 1iii of the Service Rules provides for certain penalties and one of the penalties inter alia is the effect of superseding him in promotion to a selection post and such is appealable
The High Court was right that appeal does not necessarily lie only against the order imposing penalty and it is also open to entertain appeal when the service rule was interpreted to the disadvantage of member of the service but rule 17 bars the filing of appeal after the expiry of 45 days
Proviso to the said rule however gives discretion to the appellate authority to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown
Rule 24 of All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1969 provides for review within different periods
Under that rule since Shri Singh could have filed an application for review within one year in this case remedy of review by Shri Singh had also become barred when the second order was passed
865G H866A B It appeared that there is provision for appeal in the order of this nature
Failure to prefer an appeal or apply for review was no bar to the submission of memorials to the President
In December 1963 in this case the year of allotment was assigned to Shri Singh
Shri Singh made the first representation in August 1969 after the period of limitation had expired
It was contended by the appellant relying on the full Bench decision of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Sunder Lal  Ors
vs The State of Punjab that in a case of bona fide mistake there was always the power to rectify
It was emphasized that every Administrative authority has an inherent right to rectify its own mistakes
It was doubtful that inherent power could be invoked if there was no reason for re fixing the appellant s year
If belated claims are allowed arbitrarily an atmosphere of uncertainty would prevail
There should be no sense of uncertainty among public service
Furthermore it was clear that if the fixation of year 1958 was a mistake the first representation was rejected with the order dated 23rd April 1970
There the Government s order reiterated that in accordance with the order contained in the Home Ministry s letter to which reference was made all cadre posts held by the non cadre officers not on Select List were deemed to have been kept in abeyance with effect from 27th September 1961 onwards
As such Shri Singh could not have claimed that he had been officiating in the cadre post prior to coming on the Select List
In 852 those circumstances Shri Singh could not be deemed to have officiated in cadre post during the period 6th December 1961 to 14th May 1963
The Central Government was of the view that the decision taken by it in 1963 fixing the year of allotment was correct
It is true that Home Ministry s letter referred to in Annexure R 4 had been quashed by the High Court but the same had no bearing on the correctness of the decision taken by the Central Government in 1963 because at the relevant time the letter was there and the Central Government was bound to act in accordance therewith
The contention of the appellant that there was no period of limitation for the grant of the approval was not relevant
It was therefore clear that there was no scope of acceptance of the second representation
In the said order there was no mention of any mistake
866C H867A C When the second order was made it affected Shri Bhanot adversely because he in the meantime had been absorbed in the IPS in 1957
It was not that the constitutionality of any provision was challenged as was the case in A Janardhana vs Union of India  Ors   967
In this case seniority of Shri Bhanot would be adversely affected as he had acquired a year of allotment
In the opinion of the Court it should have been done upon notice to Shri Bhanot
867C E The High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant
Having regard to the facts of the case the Central Government was directed to refix the salary scale of the appellant taking into consideration the appellant s service in UP and Himachal Pradesh cadre in the senior position as a deputationist
867G Arun Ranjan Mukherjee vs Union of India  Ors Madan Gopal Singh vs Union of India DR Nim IPS vs Union of India  Government of India and Anr
vs CA Balakrishnana  Ors The Collector of Customs Baroda vs Digvijaysinhji Spinning  Weaving Mills Ltd   899Ram Prakash Khanna  Ors etc
vs SAF Abbas  Ors etc  Sunder Lal  Ors
vs The State of Punjab A Janardhana vs Union of India  Ors  967 and General Manager South Central Railway Secundrabad  Anr etc
vs AVR Siddhanti  Ors etc   referred to