Contempt by coercive departmental action during pending litigation can arise where discipline proceedings pressure a litigant to abandon the suit.

Conduct during pending litigation that is calculated to coerce a litigant into withdrawing or not pressing the case may amount to contempt because contempt extends beyond direct attacks on the court to acts tending to interfere with the due course of justice. In the stated majority view, departmental proceedings initiated against a government servant while his civil suit was pending had a practical tendency to pressure him in relation to that suit, so the charge-sheet and disciplinary action were treated as contempt. The forwarding officer was also treated as having directed the proceedings, rather than acting merely as a neutral conduit. A dissenting view considered the charge-sheet to concern only service misconduct and not the pending suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether departmental proceedings initiated against a government servant during the pendency of his civil suit, on the footing that he had not exhausted departmental remedies before approaching court, amounted to contempt of court by tending to interfere with or prejudice the litigant during the litigation.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that contempt is not confined to direct attacks on the court but extends to conduct that tends to interfere with the due course of justice or prejudice a party while litigation is pending. The majority held that the charge-sheet and disciplinary action, although framed as a matter of service discipline, were initiated while the respondent's suit was pending and were likely in practical effect to coerce him to withdraw or not press the suit. The action was therefore treated as having a clear tendency to obstruct the course of justice. The majority also treated the appellant who merely forwarded the memorandum as having gone beyond a neutral transmission by directing that proceedings be taken.

Conclusion: The departmental proceedings amounted to contempt of court, and the appellants were guilty; the appeal failed.

Dissenting Opinion: Raghubar Dayal, J., held that the charge-sheet concerned only misconduct and indiscipline, did not refer to the merits of the pending suit, and did not threaten consequences for continuing the suit. On that view, the departmental action was a legitimate exercise of service discipline and did not amount to contempt.

Ratio Decidendi: Conduct that, during pending litigation, is calculated to coerce a litigant to withdraw or not press the case has the requisite tendency to interfere with the course of justice and constitutes contempt of court.

---