"Deeply disturbing": Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench censures single-judge

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has censured a single-judge of the High Court for repeatedly failing to comply with the principles laid down by it regarding exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act [Dr Manish Bansal vs Subhash Chander Malik and Others].A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma directed the single-judge holding the Contempt of Court roster to ensure strict compliance with the principles and not act “in a slipshod and arbitrary manner”.“The said repeated passing of orders deeply disturbs the judicial conscience of this Court,” the Bench said..The Division Bench made these observations in a judgment pronounced on January 7 in a case where it found that the Single Judge had derogated from the established procedure.Referring to other cases where the single-judge had proceeded in a similar manner, the Court observed that repeatedly passing such orders disturbed its judicial conscience.“Now the instant case is not the only one where the contemnors have been led to institute appeals against the alike instant impugned orders), rather the said are repeatedly made, despite the appeals arising thereagainst becoming decided in favour of the appellants, and, with trite underpinnings therein, thus anviled upon the supra expostulations of law, which rather well forbade the learned Contempt Bench concerned, from drawing contempt proceedings, unless adherence becomes made to the supra established procedure(s). Therefore, the said repeated passing of orders deeply disturbs the judicial conscience of this Court,” the Court stated. .The Bench further observed that the edifice of judiciary rests upon the principle of propriety and the norm of constitutional decorum and such “breaches” by the single-judge do not augur well for the justice system.“Resultantly, the supra breaches vis-a-vis the norms of propriety by the learned Contempt Bench concerned, as emanate(s) from despite earlier orders being passed by this Court, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, thus wherebys orders alike the present one, thus became quashed, yet repeatedly thus alike the earlier quashed orders, but orders rather becoming re-rendered, by the learned Single Bench of this Court. The said does not well augur for preserving either the norm of propriety nor the supra departures augur well qua the necessity of instilling faith and public confidence in the administration of justice.”.It was dealing with an appeal challenging an interim order passed by the single-judge in a contempt of court case related to salaries of certain lab technicians in Haryana.The writ court had earlier directed the State to decide representation of the lab technicians. They then moved the Contempt Bench alleging non-compliance the writ court's order.Though the Contempt Bench was informed about rejection of the lab technicians’ representation, it had adjourned the matter with the direction that in case of non-compliance by the next date of hearing, the erring official shall remain present before it and be liable to pay litigation costs of ₹50,000 to the petitioners..The official respondents challenged this order before the Division Bench, contending that such order at threshold of the contempt petition amounted to imposition of punishment. In response, the lab technicians' counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable, unless an order of punishment was passed.Pertinently, the Division Bench on January 7 pronounced its decision on ten appeals against the orders passed by the single-judge. It allowed all the appeals. .On the question of jurisdiction, the Division Bench ruled that any order or decision of the single-judge which manifests “any proclivities towards ultimately punishing the alleged contemnor” can be challenged before it.Further, it took exception to another order passed by the single-judge during pendency of appeal against his interim order in one of the cases.Despite the Division Bench’s order staying proceedings before the Contempt Bench, the single-judge had allowed withdrawal of the contempt of court plea.“The passing of the hereinabove extracted order by the learned Contempt Court concerned, despite an appeal … being subjudice before this Court, to the considered mind of this Court, unnecessarily intrudes into the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the Court,” it said..The Division Bench went on to remark that the Contempt Bench had passed such an order “merely to escape the effects” of the observations made by it against the imposition of costs.It further said that a person charged in a contempt of court case is required to be given an opportunity to file a reply and only after that can it reach a conclusion on whether civil contempt has been committed.Having concluded that the procedure was not followed in the present case, the Division Bench quashed the single-judge’s orders and discharged the alleged contemnors..In a rare direction, the Division Bench said that its order be sent to the concerned Contempt Bench “for complete adherence being made to the above expostulated principles of law, and, it is expected that hereafter the supra norms of proprietary and judicial decorum uneroded”.It further said that a copy of its order be also sent to the High Court Chief Justice..Additional Advocate General Ankur Mittal, Senior Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Mago with advocates Kushaldeep K Manchanda and Siddhant Arora represented the appellant-officers of State of HaryanaAdvocates Ankur Sheoran and Samrat Malik represented the respondents.[Read Judgment]