- (1.) These are two appeals on certificates granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. They have been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.
(2.) The appeals are from the judgment and order of the said High Court dated November 5, 1958, by which it found the two appellants guilty of an offence punishable under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (32 of 1952) and directed them, by way of punishment, to abandon the departmental proceedings which had been taken against the respondent Gurbaksh Singh for an alleged contravention of the instructions contained in a circular letter dated January 25,1953 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government and warned them against complying with the said instructions.
(3.) The relevant facts are these. Gurbaksh Singh, respondent in the two appeals, was a Forester in the Punjab Forest Department. Pratap Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1959, was, at the relevant time, Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab. Bachan Singh, appellant in the other appeal, was Divisional Forest Officer, Amritsar. It appears that in the year 1950 the respondent supplied three lacs cubic feet of timber to the various Ordnance Depots under orders of the then Chief Conservator of Forests. In 1954, the then Chief Conservator of Forests sent a letter to the respondent alleging that there had been a short supply in the timber which was sent to the Ordnance Depot at Chhoke and that there had been a loss of Rs. ll,366 to the Government. By an order conveyed in a letter dated July 16,1956 the State Government directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to recover ten per cent. of the loss i. e. Rs. 1,136 and odd annas from the respondent Gurhaksh Singh. The letter further stated that the recovery sought to be made from the salary of the respondent was in accordance with the rules contained in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and that an opportunity had already been given to the Forester to submit an explanation and the order for recovery was made after considering his explanation. Gurbaksh Singh then instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar for a declaration that the order of recovery made against him was void and without effect. The suit was followed by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution which was, however, dismissed by the Punjab High Court on May 20, 1957. When the summons in the suit instituted in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, was served on the State Government, the Under Secretary to the said Government in the Forest and Animal Husbandry Departments, sent a memorandum to the Chief Conservator of Forests in which the attention of the latter was drawn to a circular letter issued by the Chief Secretary on January 25, 1953. The letter has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the High Court and was in these terms : "I am directed to say that the question of Government servants having recourse to Courts of law in matters arising out of their employment or conditions of service has been engaging the attention of Government for some time past and it is considered necessary to lay down that in the matter of grievances arising out of a Government servant's employment or conditions of service the proper course is to seek redress from the appropriate departmental and governmental authorities. Any attempt by a Government servant to seek a decision on such issues in a Court of law (even in cases where such a remedy is legally admissible) without first exhausting the normal official channels of redress, can only be regarded as contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline and may well justify the initiation of disciplinary action against the Government servant. These instructions may, therefore, be brought to the notice of all Government servants of your department/office." The Under Secretary said in his memorandum that as the respondent had not exhausted the departmental remedies open to him before going to a court of law, he had rendered himself liable to disciplinary action as per the instructions contained in the circular letter. The Under Secretary then said : "It may please be intimated immediately" as to what action you propose to take against him." On receipt of this memorandum, the appellant Pratap Singh sent a copy thereof to the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, and directed that the respondent should be proceeded with in accordance with the instructions aforesaid and a copy of the proceedings recorded and orders passed in the case should be forwarded to him. On receipt of the said orders, the Conservator of Forests, South Circle, passed an office order appointing Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 1959, to hold an enquiry against the respondent for having contravened the instructions contained in the circular letter quoted above. Bachan Singh then drew up a charge-sheet against the respondent and asked him to submit an explanation in writing within 15 days. In the charge-sheet it was stated that the respondent had gone to a court of law before exhausting all his departmental remedies and this was contrary to official propriety and subversive of good discipline. The chargesheet appears to have been drawn up on or about August 30, 1957. Then on September 14, 1957 the respondent made an application to the High Court to the effect that the two appellants had committed contempt of Court punishable under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. In that petition the allegation made was that appellant Pratap Singh had framed and got served a charge-sheet on the respondent and appellant Bachan Singh was holding an enquiry into the charge, which was tantamount to interfering with the legal rights of the respondent to seek redress in a court of law and also amounted to exerting pressure upon him with the intent of restraining him from pressing his suit. This, it was stated, amounted to an obstruction of the judicial process and interfered with the course of justice in respect of the suit which was pending in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, a Court subordinate to the High Court. The High Court issued notice to the appellants and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that though the appellants were clearly guilty of an offence punishable under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, they were merely endeavouring to comply with the instructions of the Government, the legality or propriety of which they had no reason to doubt. In that view of the matter, the High Court expressed the view that the ends of justice would be amply met if the two appellants were directed to abandon the departmental proceedings which had been taken against the respondent and furthermore, if they were warned against complying with the instructions contained in the circular letter issued by the State Government.;