R.S. Sujatha vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

2. (A) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the State of Karnataka vide order dated 24.1.2001 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, an Indian Administrative Service Officer of Karnataka cadre, on the allegation that she had committed certain irregularities in the allotment of wheat under a special programme called the State Funded Wheat Based Nutrition Programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called M/s Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The said regular enquiry stood initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report dated 31.3.1997.

(B) The appellant filed O.A. No.715 of 2002 before the Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the Articles of charge dated 30.11.1999 and subsequent proceedings on diverse grounds. In the said Original Application (hereinafter referred to as `O.A.'), the appellant had made a specific averment that the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 19.6.2002, as the copy of the same was furnished to her by the 3rd respondent i.e. the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it had been contended by the appellant that she had approached the Tribunal within limitation. However, taking abundant caution, she had also filed an application for condonation of delay. (C) The reply to the said application was filed by the respondents therein on 18.10.2002, wherein it was contended that the order dated 30.11.1999 had been issued to the appellant on 2.12.1999 by Registered Post with AD.

(D) The Tribunal instead of proceeding with the matter on merit or deciding the issue of limitation, passed an order dated 15.11.2002 2 stating that the appellant had made a false statement in the O.A. regarding limitation which was intentional and deliberate. Therefore, prima facie, the Tribunal was of the view that the appellant had committed criminal contempt and a show cause notice dated 15.11.2002 was issued to the appellant calling upon her "to appear in person before the Tribunal on 29.11.2002 at 10.30 a.m. to answer the said show cause notice on which day the matter would be listed for hearing".

6. The facts mentioned hereinabove make it clear that the Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the case filed by the appellant at all. The appellant had approached the Tribunal for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and the opposite party had raised the issue of limitation pointing out that she had been served the Articles of Charges at an earlier stage and the averment made by the appellant in this regard was false. The Tribunal ought to have framed an issue on limitation, asked the parties to lead evidence and decide it on merit. 5 It was totally unwarranted and uncalled for to initiate criminal contempt proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings taken by the opposite parties therein. Criminal contempt has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:

(Emphasis supplied)

Rule 15. Procedure for trial:-

(Emphasis added)

20. The ratio of the judgment in Sahdeo (supra) applies to this case in entirety. The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 in O.A. No. 715 of 2002 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs.

..................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) .............................

......J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi;

November 29, 2010 1 1 1