TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shankar Jha, AOR, Mr. Rohan Mandal, Adv., Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Adv. JUDGEMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI 1 Delay condoned. 2 Leave granted. 3 A disciplinary proceeding was convened against the petitioner for alleged acts of misconduct when he was posted as Officer Commanding B/30 Bn., CRPF. He was removed from service in July 1995. 4 After the appeal against the order of punishment was rejected, the respondent instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the purpose of present discussion, it is not necessary to deal with all the intervening stages in the proceedings. 5 By an order dated 24 December 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi directed that : "34 For all of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on 31 March 2021. This emerges from paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Single Judge, which is in the following terms: "38 The Petitioner in his written submissions dated 02.03.2023 had stated that even if the date of implementation of minor penalty is considered to take effect from 16.10.2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from the year 2021, till his date of retirement, i.e. on 31.03.2023. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the said submission during the course of hearing dated 03.03.2023 and submitted that the Petitioner would be satisfied if he is grante....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in case the contemnors did not issue appropriate orders granting promotion to the respondent to the rank of IG within the time granted, the case would he heard for sentencing on the next date of hearing. 11 A Letters Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench against the order of the Single Judge dated 2 June 2023. The Division Bench, however, rejected the Letters Patent Appeal as not being maintainable on the ground that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would not be maintainable since no punishment had been imposed by the Single Judge and the observations made by the Single Judge were not to be construed as crystallizing any right in favour of the respondent. On this understanding, the Division Bench has o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent Appeal would not be maintainable under Section 19, if the matter were to only rest there. However, from the extracts which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, it is evident that the Single Judge: (i) Recorded the submission of the respondent herein (as set out in the written submissions dated 2 March 2023) that even if the implementation of the minor penalty was to take effect from 16 October 2018, he would be entitled to all promotions till the rank of IG from 2021 till the date of his retirement on 31 March 2023; and (ii) Held that there was willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench on 24 December 2019 with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that "in view of our understanding of the impugned judgment, as noted above, 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. Two aspects were covered by the judgment of the Single Judge : Firstly, a finding that the appellants were guilty of contempt of the order dated 24 December 2019; and Secondly, that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of IG. The first aspect is not amenable to an appeal under Section 19 at the present stag....