J K SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of admission in this petition was basically given with regard to inclusion of matter mentioned at Sr. No. 2(a) and (c) in the charge sheet. These read as under :

(2.) A citizen of this country is entitled to have redress through the legal system and merely because a notice has been issued on his behalf it cannot be made a ground or subject matter of an enquiry. The inclusion of such charge would amount to interference with the process of administration of justice. Any kind of threat veiled or apparent which amounts to threatening a person to not to seek redress of his grievance would amount to contempt as this would amount to preventing the cause of justice.

(3.) In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the decision given by the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 1962 SC 1172. By an order of the Government, a certain amount was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the respondent, a Government servant for the loss suffered by the Government due to certain action of the respondent, a Government due to certain action of the respondent. Respondent instituted a civil suit was (with) a declaration that the order for the recovery was void and without effect. There was a State Government circular to the effect that it is improper for a Government servant to take recourse to a Court of law before the exhausted the normal channels of redress and that if any recourse to a court of law is taken contrary to the circular, it would be regarded as contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and might justify the initiation of disciplinary action. In accordance with the circular a departmental enquiry was started against the respondent. Upon a petition by the respondent the High Court held that the action of the Government in starting departmental proceeding amounted to contempt of court and the officers conducting and ordering the inquiry were guilty of an offence under S. 3 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, and directed the officers to abandon the departmental proceedings and were warned against complying with the instructions contained in the circular letter. On an appeal having been preferred in the Supreme Court of India, it was held in categoric terms that asking a person not to pursue his legal remedies would definitely amount to contempt.