THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.1553 OF 2010 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN K.Panduranga Rao …Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.1553 OF 2010 ORDER: The Sarpanch of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District, filed Writ Petition No.15265 of 2010 before this Court challenging the proceedings dated 23.06.2010 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, in exercise of powers under Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No.30, PR, RD & R, dated 20.01.1995, prohibiting him from drawing the monies of the Gram Panchayat for a period of six months. By interim order dated 02.07.2010 this Court, being of the opinion that the exercise of power by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, under the aforestated rule was demonstrably arbitrary and opposed to the scheme of the provision, stayed the impugned proceeding and permitted the petitioner to exercise cheque drawing powers. Pursuant to the aforestated order, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, issued proceedings dated 15.07.2010 recording that his earlier orders dated 23.06.2010 stood vacated in view of the interim order of this Court dated 02.07.2010 and declared that the petitioner shall operate all Gram Panchayat funds as usual. A copy of this proceeding was marked to the Panchayat Secretary of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat also. Thereafter, upon the representation dated 03.08.2010 of the petitioner complaining that the Panchayat Secretary of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat was refusing to hand over the cheque book, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, issued proceedings dated 07.08.2010 referring to the complaint of the petitioner and instructing the Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, to make available the cheque book to the Sarpanch whenever needed as it involved Court orders. Again, by proceedings dated 18.08.2010, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, referring to his earlier proceedings dated 15.07.2010 and 07.08.2010, instructed the Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, to make the cheque book available to the Sarpanch whenever he asked for it and to see that further complaints were not received from the Sarpanch in this regard. He was also informed that the instructions were issued on the basis of the orders of this Court and that action would have to be taken against him if he failed to obey the instructions. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, the petitioner Sarpanch sought the leave of this Court to prosecute the Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, for committing contempt of the orders of this Court. Leave was granted on 26.10.2010, whereby the Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, was arrayed as respondent 3 in the contempt case, while showing the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Tenali, Guntur District, as merely nominal parties, respondents 1 and 2. Trite to state, if a third party commits contempt of Court by wilfully violating/disobeying a Court order, contempt proceedings can be initiated against him after impleading him and giving him due opportunity of hearing [SABIRABI v. B.OBULA REDDY[1] and A.M.MADHAVA RAO v. T.CHATTERJEE[2]]. Notice Before Admission was ordered in the case on 02.11.2010. In response, Talasila Vidya Sagar, respondent 3, filed his first counter affidavit dated 06.12.2010 wherein he pointed out that he was not a party to the writ petition but had been impleaded in the contempt case. He stated that he was placed as In-charge Panchayat Secretary of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat only on 13.07.2010. He however admitted receipt of the proceedings dated 15.07.2010 addressed to him by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur. He baldly stated that the cheque book was made available to the petitioner whenever he wanted to withdraw money from the account of the Gram Panchayat and that he had not restricted or taken any objection to such withdrawal of amounts by the petitioner. He denied the allegation that he had not implemented this Court’s order and that the petitioner had approached him several times requesting issuance of cheque book but he had refused to comply, stating that he had oral instructions from the concerned Minister. He made a categorical statement in the following terms: “5. ……… I submit that the petitioner is withdrawing cheques after my counter signatures on the said cheques. I submit that I never restricted the petitioner from withdrawing the amounts. The cheque book is available with the petitioner only.” Having stated so, he ended with an unconditional apology in the event this Court felt that he had committed any mistake or violated the orders of the Court. The petitioner filed his reply affidavit dated 24.01.2011 stating that it was only upon receiving the notice in this contempt case that the Panchayat Secretary handed over the cheque book to him on 08.11.2010. He pointed out that the Panchayat Secretary had not given any explanation for non-issuance of the cheque book from 15.07.2010 onwards in spite of being aware of this Court’s order. He denied the averment that the cheque book was made available to him as and when required and alleged that Panchayat Secretary himself had encashed a cheque on 13.08.2010 without the petitioner’s counter signature. The contempt case was admitted on 25.02.2011. Upon the appearance of respondent 3 on 25.03.2011, the matter was adjourned for production of the records. It was however stated on 08.04.2011 by the learned counsel appearing for respondent 3 that the records called for were not in the custody of his client but were available with the petitioner himself in the capacity of Sarpanch. On 15.04.2011 this Court, taking note of the submission made by the Panchayat Secretary in his counter that the petitioner had withdrawn amounts under cheques which were counter signed by him, directed respondent 3 to produce the copies of the same. Thereupon, respondent 3 filed an additional counter affidavit dated 06.06.2011 wherein he tried to deviate from the unequivocal statement made by him in his first counter, by stating that he had only referred to the procedural aspect involved in allowing Sarpanches to withdraw the Panchayat funds. He tried to explain away the categorical statement made by him earlier by stating that it was made with a little bit of confusion and did not convey the proper meaning. He again reiterated that upon receiving instructions from the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, he had made available the cheque book to the petitioner and never restricted him from withdrawing the amounts of the Gram Panchayat. In the light of the inconsistent and prevaricating statements made by the Panchayat Secretary to suit the moment, this Court adjourned the matter on 21.06.2011 to enable the Panchayat Secretary to file a comprehensive affidavit detailing the steps taken by him pursuant to the order of this Court and the instructions of his superior. This direction evoked the affidavit dated 01.07.2011 wherein the Panchayat Secretary developed a new case altogether. While acknowledging receipt of the proceedings dated 15.07.2010, 07.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 addressed to him by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, he again baldly asserted that he had made available the cheque book and the records pertaining to the accounts to the petitioner. He referred in this regard to the receipt dated 08.11.2010 wherein the petitioner endorsed that he had received the cheque book. Having said so, he went on to build up a new case by stating that the petitioner had not given any requisition letter to him asking for the cheque book and that the delay in issuance of the same was because of the fact that there was no requisition from the petitioner. He stated that there was only one employee in the Office of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the question of payment of salaries did not arise and no occasion arose for the Sarpanch to withdraw Gram Panchayat funds. He further stated that the petitioner had not filed any document to show that prior to 08.11.2010 he had requested him for the cheque book duly mentioning the purpose therefor. He referred to the fact that he was relieved from the in-charge post of Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, on 24.01.2011 and asserted that during his tenure in the said post he had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. He levelled a counter allegation against the petitioner that he bore a grudge against him for not obeying his whims and fancies and except for this, there was no other reason for making complaints against him to his superior. He ended by stating that he had implemented the order of this Court and that the cheque book was made available to the petitioner, scrupulously following the instructions given by his superior, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur. He reiterated his unconditional apology in the event this Court felt that he had committed any mistake or violated this Court’s order and offered his assurance that it would not be repeated in future. Heard Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for respondent 3. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines ‘civil contempt’ as under: “2(b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;” It is now well settled that to qualify as ‘civil contempt’ under the above provision, the disobedience must be wilful, which would exclude casual or accidental or bona fide or unintentional acts or a genuine inability to comply with the Court order. Needless to state, disobedience of Court orders strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based but at the same time, exercise of jurisdiction under this Act cannot rest on mere probabilities and breach has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is no doubt true that the Panchayat Secretary, Rajukalva Gram Panchayat, respondent 3, was not a party to the interim order dated 02.07.2010. However, being a member of the administrative hierarchy, he was bound to comply with and implement the said order once he received intimation of the same. It is not necessary that there should be official communication of the said order to him from this Court. Knowledge of the order can be clearly imputed to him from his admission that he received the proceedings dated 15.07.2010 addressed to him by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, intimating the passing of the interim order dated 02.07.2010 and the consequences that were to follow. Once the Panchayat Secretary was aware of the order dated 02.07.2010 by virtue of this communication, he cannot avoid or evade these contempt proceedings claiming ignorance of this Court’s order or citing the fact that he was not a party to the same. The observations in I.B.SUGUNA DEVI v. C.B.S.VENKATA RAMANA[3] are of relevance in this regard: “9. If a party who is fully in the know of the order of the Court, or is conscious and aware of the consequences and implications of the Court's order, ignores it or acts in violation thereof, it must be held that the disobedience is wilful. It may not be possible to prove the actual intention behind the act or omission. A Court can approach the question only objectively and it may presume the intention from the act done as every man is presumed to intend the probable consequence of his act. [Court on its own Motion v. N.S.Kanwar (1995 Cri.LJ 1261 (P&H HC DB)]. To establish that disobedience was wilful it is not necessary to show that it was contumacious in the sense that there was a direct intention to disobey the order. Effective administration of justice would require some penalty for disobedience to the order of the Court if disobedience is more than casual, accidental or unintentional. [Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd. v. Transport and General Workers Union, 1972 (3) All ER 101 (House of Lords); N.S.Kanwar’s case (supra )].” Though the aforestated observations were made in the context of a party to the order, the same would be equally applicable to a third party who, being made aware, was duty-bound to comply with the order. It is in this context that the studied inaction on the part of the Panchayat Secretary in complying with the order would have to be tested. Though the Panchayat Secretary stated time and again that he had complied with the order and he had made available the cheque book to the petitioner, it is a matter of record that the cheque book was received by the petitioner only on 08.11.2010. Thus, the cheque book was furnished to the petitioner four months after the passing of the order on 02.07.2010. The Panchayat Secretary no doubt took charge of the post on 13.07.2010 but he received the proceedings dated 15.07.2010 addressed to him by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, thereafter. He also admits receipt of the subsequent proceedings dated 07.08.2010 and 18.08.2010 from his superior. Significantly, the Panchayat Secretary did not choose to respond to any of these communications. Had the Panchayat Secretary complied with the order of this Court and the instructions of his superior by making available the cheque book, he would have informed the same immediately to the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur. This silence on the part of the Panchayat Secretary in the face of the communications addressed to him by his superior speaks volumes. The admitted fact that the cheque book was made available to the petitioner only on 08.11.2010 clearly indicates that there was total dereliction on the part of the Panchayat Secretary in complying with this Court’s directive. Except for bald and self-serving statements in his counter, the Panchayat Secretary did not even to choose to cogently explain as to why this delay occurred. It was only in his last counter affidavit that the Panchayat Secretary developed a new story that the delay was attributable to the petitioner himself as he failed to make a requisition for the cheque book. However, this newly concocted plea falls to the ground in the light of the failure of the Panchayat Secretary to respond to the communications addressed to him by the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur. Had it been really the case that the petitioner failed to ask for the cheque book, the Panchayat Secretary would have lost no time in bringing the same to the notice of his superior. All the more so, when the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, was threatening him with disciplinary action if he failed to obey the instructions. The scant regard for the truth shown by the Panchayat Secretary is amply demonstrated by his first counter wherein he falsely averred that the petitioner had withdrawn amounts under cheques duly counter signed by him and his subsequent action in building up a new case in his third affidavit, totally at variance with the record. The cryptic statement that the petitioner bore a grudge against him for not obeying his whims and fancies is unworthy of credence as the Panchayat Secretary did not even choose to elaborate as to what the whims and fancies of the petitioner were and why he did not choose to say so in his earlier affidavits. In the totality of the facts and circumstances narrated supra, this Court is of the firm conviction that, be it for whatever reason, the Panchayat Secretary wilfully chose not to obey the order of this Court despite clear instructions to do so from his superior, the District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, time and again. No convincing explanation is forthcoming from the many affidavits filed by the Panchayat Secretary and on the other hand, the contradictions therein and the changing stands leave this Court in no doubt that the Panchayat Secretary has neither regard for the truth nor respect for the orders of this Court. Though the Panchayat Secretary offered his unconditional apology to this Court, it is to be noticed that each counter filed by him demonstrably augmented his recalcitrance and the concluding apology was only a formal mode of ending the affidavit. As pointed out in M.Y.SHAREEF v. HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE NAGPUR HIGH COURT[4], an apology is not intended to operate as a universal panacea. It is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the offender but is intended to be evidence of real contrition, the manly consciousness or a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrongdoer’s power [DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION[5]]. Further as pointed out in L.D.JAIKWAL v. STATE OF U.P.[6], the ‘slap- say sorry-and forget’ school of thought cannot be applied in administration of contempt jurisprudence as saying ‘sorry’ would not make the slapper poorer nor would the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. The conduct of the Panchayat Secretary throughout the hearing of this contempt case leaves no room to doubt that his apologies are not a consequence of compunction or contrition but a mere attempt to escape the consequences of his contumacious conduct. The apology is accordingly rejected. In the result, this Court finds that respondent 3, Talasila Vidya Sagar, In-Charge Panchayat Secretary of Rajukalva Gram Panchayat at the relevant point of time, committed wilful disobedience to the order dated 02.07.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.15265 of 2010 and he is consequently held in civil contempt. This contempt, in the face of a clear directive from this Court, substantially interfered with the due course of justice. The Panchayat Secretary must therefore be punished appropriately under Section 12 of the Act of 1971. He is accordingly sentenced to undergo detention in civil prison for a period of one (1) month and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand). He shall be paid subsistence allowance of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) per day during his detention, under Rule 32(1) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, which shall be borne by the State. The Contempt Case is ordered accordingly. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS Learned counsel for respondent 3 sought suspension of the order to enable his client to avail appellate remedies. The order shall accordingly stand suspended for a period of one month. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 9th SEPTEMBER, 2011. BSB [1] 2001 (1) ALD 5 (DB) [2] 2008 (6) ALD 173 [3] 2008 (6) ALD 259 [4] AIR 1955 SC 19 [5] (1995) 3 SCC 507 [6] (1984) 3 SCC 405