2025 (11) TMI 1427 - SC - Indian Laws

SC ruling restores appeal, holds contempt order created enforceable promotion rights to IG from 2021 onward

Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors Versus Prakash Kumar dixit.

SC held that the Single Judge's contempt order had crystallized a substantive right in favour of the petitioner by directing grant of promotion to the ... Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge - Convention of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding - willful disobedience of the directions which were issued by the Division Bench - HELD THAT:- The Single Judge gave an opportunity to the appellants “to issue a fresh order granting promotion to the petitioner to the rank of IG” to bring him at par with his immediate junior. 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 crystallized finding that the respondent herein was entitled to promotion as IG, in any event with effect from 2021. The Division Bench has lost sight of this aspect. The Division Bench noted the submission of the respondent that the judgment of the Single Judge should not be construed as crystallizing any right in favour of the respondent and should only be confined to the question as to whether the appellants herein had committed a willful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 24 December 2019. The Division Bench accepted this submission and observed that “in view of our understanding of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has not decided any dispute regarding the rights and obligations of the parties” other than adjudicating on the issue of contempt. 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. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench set aside and Letters Patent Appeal restored to the file of the Division Bench for consideration on merits - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) lay against a Single Judge's order passed in contempt proceedings, where the order (a) held the appellants guilty of contempt, and (b) simultaneously determined substantive service rights of the respondent, including entitlement to promotion to the rank of IG. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge's contempt order involving determination of substantive rights Legal framework 2.1.1 The Court referred to the principles summarised in paragraph 11 of the decision in 'Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others', particularly: 2.1.1.1 An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt (para 11.I). 2.1.1.2 Directions or decisions made in contempt proceedings on the merits of the dispute between parties are not in exercise of the 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and are not appealable under Section 19 (para 11.IV). 2.1.1.3 However, if in contempt proceedings the High Court decides any issue or makes any direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, such order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal where available (para 11.V). Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.2 The Court noted that the Single Judge's order dated 2 June 2023 did two distinct things: 2.1.2.1 It held the appellants (then respondents) guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the Division Bench's judgment dated 24 December 2019 in respect of pay fixation, seniority and consequential benefits including promotion (para 39). 2.1.2.2 It effectively crystallised a substantive service right by proceeding on the basis that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG, at least with effect from 2021, and granted six weeks' time to issue a fresh order granting such promotion to bring him at par with his immediate junior (para 41 read with para 38-39). 2.1.3 The Court emphasised that the finding of willful disobedience (contempt) was immediately preceded by the recording of the respondent's submission claiming entitlement to promotions up to the rank of IG from 2021 till retirement, and was followed by a direction to issue an order granting promotion to the rank of IG. On a plain reading, this meant that the Single Judge had gone beyond merely determining contempt and had adjudicated on substantive rights relating to promotion. 2.1.4 The Division Bench, in dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal as not maintainable, had proceeded on the understanding that: 2.1.4.1 No punishment for contempt had been imposed, and therefore no appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act was maintainable. 2.1.4.2 The Single Judge's observations were only for determining whether there was willful disobedience and did not crystallise any rights or obligations between the parties (paras 52-53). 2.1.5 The Court held that the Division Bench erred by confining its analysis only to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and by relying on the respondent's submission about how the Single Judge's order should be 'understood', instead of examining the order on its own terms. 2.1.6 Applying the principles in 'Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.', the Court drew a distinction between: 2.1.6.1 The aspect of the Single Judge's order which related to holding the appellants guilty of contempt-appealable under Section 19 only upon imposition of punishment. 2.1.6.2 The aspect relating to adjudication of the respondent's entitlement to promotion to the rank of IG-constituting a determination of the merits of the underlying service dispute, which was amenable to challenge in an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) in terms of para 11(V) of the precedent. 2.1.7 The Court clarified that the question whether an intra-court appeal lies must be determined by the true character and content of the Single Judge's order, not by later submissions seeking to limit its effect. Since the Single Judge's order had clearly crystallised a right to promotion and issued a direction to grant IG rank, that part of the order was appealable intra-court. Conclusions 2.1.8 An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable in the absence of an order imposing punishment for contempt; to that extent, the contempt finding alone was not appealable under Section 19 at this stage. 2.1.9 However, where, in contempt proceedings, a Single Judge adjudicates or crystallises substantive rights between the parties-such as directing promotion to a particular rank-such part of the order is not an exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and is amenable to an intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal), in line with para 11(V) of 'Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.'. 2.1.10 The Division Bench erred in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and in treating the Single Judge's order as not deciding any dispute about rights and obligations other than contempt. 2.1.11 The impugned order of the Division Bench dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal for want of maintainability was set aside, and the Letters Patent Appeal, along with associated applications, was restored to the file of the Division Bench for consideration on merits, with all contentions of the parties kept open and a direction for expeditious disposal.