- (1.) Permissiveness of the judicial system which enabled the contemner to file innumerable petitions claiming the same relief arising out of the same cause of action undeterred by its refusal, on various occasions by this court, coupled with the indulgence and sympathy shown by this court, appears to have emboldened the respondent contemner to cast unfounded and unwarranted aspersions and make scurrilous and indecent attacks against this court and its Judges in wild, intemperate and even abusive language. Narration of facts to point out the extent to which the contemner has abused the process of the court and how indulgence and sympathy shown by this court has been 'exploited' by him is not only desirable but necessary to appreciate how and why contempt proceedings have been initiated against him.
(2.) Shri Roshan Lal Ahuja (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') was appointed as a Draftsman Grade II in the pay scale of Rs. 205-7-240- 8-280 in 1964 with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, government of India. On 28/06/1970, he was reduced in rank to the post of Draftsman Grade ill in the scale of Rs. 150- 5-175-6-205-EB-7-240. The contemner filed Writ Petition No. 194 of 1970 in the Delhi High court challenging his reduction in rank. On 16/08/1974, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. A letters patent appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed by the division bench on 3/12/1974. Special leave petition was preferred in this court which also failed. The contemner then sought a review of the order in the special leave petition on two different occasions and both the petitions were dismissed. Though the matter should have ended here, the contemner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 32 of 1977 under Article 32 of the Constitution once again putting in issue his reduction in rank from Draftsman Grade II to Draftsman Grade III. That writ petition was, however subsequently withdrawn. It transpires that the contemner was convicted by the Sessions Judge for an offence of attempting to commit murder by shooting at his wife. The conviction was confirmed by the High court. A special leave petition against hisconviction and sentence was filed in this court and the same was dismissed. However, some observations were made while dismissing the special leave petition in the criminal case, which according to the contemner had absolved him of any moral turpitude in the matter. Consequent upon his conviction, the contemner, after notice, was dismissed from service. He filed Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 and various interim applications in the said writ petition putting in issue once again his reduction in rank and loss of monetary benefits. He later on amended the writ petition with a view to challenge the order of dismissal also. In the said Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978, rule nisi was issued. Various interim orders also came to be made. One of the interim orders in the writ petition directed the government to consider the question of entitlement of the contemner to arrears of salary and other benefits and by yet another interim order his reinstatement was ordered with the stipulation that he be so reinstated but only as a fresh entrant. That order reads thus: "Defence Ministry will expedite consideration and as far as possible absorb this small draftsman back into service subject to such conditions as it seeks to impose. The appointment will be a de novo appointment. "in obedience to the interim order (supra) the contemner was reinstated in service during the pendency of the writ petition. He, however, filed another writ petition in the Delhi High court for the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled consequent on his reinstatement. That writ petition was, at the request of the contemner, transferred to this court and heard along with Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978. Chinnappa Reddy, J. constituting the bench with Ranganath Misra, J. (as His Lordship then was) dismissed Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 on merits on 20/11/1986 With regard to his grievance against reduction in rank and arrears of salary etc. , the bench observed: "We do not think that any interference is called for by us at the instance of the petitioner. As mentioned by us the order reducing him in rank was questioned by him repeatedly before the present writ petition was filed and on every occasion he lost. We do not see any justification for permitting him to challenge the order once again in the present writ petition. In view of the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions we cannot also entertain his claims for arrears of salary and other benefits. "
(3.) The bench also found that the order of dismissal of the contemner from service on the ground that he had been convicted of a criminal offence which had been made after notice to him did not suffer from any infirmity. The bench negatived the plea of the contemner, who was appearing in person, that in view of the observations of this court at thetime of the disposal of the special leave petition, in the criminal case, absolving him of moral turpitude, he could not have been dismissed from service. The bench observed: "It is not possible for us to accept this contention. All that the court said was that it may be that there was no. moral turpitude and that may be taken into account for other purposes but so far as the criminal case was concerned the conviction and sentence were correct. We are not prepared to read the observations of the court as absolving the petitioner of all moral turpitude. We are unable to hold that the order dismissing the petitioner from service was illegal or improper. The petitioner has filed innumerable petitions, for amendment of the writ petition, for inspection of documents, for directions and so on. We do not consider it necessary to refer to any of these applications. He also filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court for the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled consequent on his reinstatement. This writ petition is also before us having been transferred to this court. We do not see any merit in it. The writ petition, the transferred case and the several civil miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. "the matter did not rest there with the dismissal, on merits, of Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978. The contemner filed yet another Writ Petition No. 946 of 1988 raising identical points and seeking similar relief based on the same cause of action and the pleas. That writ petition was heard by a division bench comprising chief justice of India, Venkatachahah, and Ahmadi, JJ. Before the bench maintainability of the writ petition was seriously questioned by the respondents. It was asserted on behalf of the respondents that the judgment of this court dated 20/11/1986 in Writ Petition 4462 of 1978 and the connected matters had finally disposed of the contemner's claims and a fresh proceeding in the teeth of that judgment was not maintainable. This objection, however, was not discussed by the bench but two of the learned Judges constituting the bench, namely, chief justice of India and Venkatachaliah, J. vide order dated 7/03/1991 , found that no direction for payment of salary for any specific period, as claimed, could be made in favour of the contemner but the bench then went on to say: "We, however, feel that the petitioner's grievance would be adequately met if a quantified sum is paid to him. We had suggested to Mr Mahajan for the Union of India to indicate the amount when the matter was heard but he ultimately left it to us. Taking an overall picture available from the records and the submissions that have been made at the bar we fix such sum at Rs. 30,000. 00 (thirty thousand) net and direct the Union of India to pay the same to the petitioner within eight weeks hence. The necessity to make an order of this type has arisen on account of the fact that the observations made by the three 452 Judge judgment, referred to above, had not been given effect to when the writ petition of 1978 was disposed of. This must be taken as the final order in this proceeding and the Registry would not be justified to entertain any fresh application of the Petitioner. Criminal M. P. No. 3564 of 1989 is also disposed of. "a separate dissenting judgment was delivered by Ahmadi, J. on 29/04/1991. The learned Judge found substance in the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and traced the history of the litigation culminating in dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4462 of 1978 on merits by its order dated November 20, 1986. The learned Judge observed: (infra, Appendix to this case) "This court after taking note of innumerable petitions filed by the petitioner refused to interfere with the order of dismissal nor did it see any reason or justification for grant of any monetary benefits. Yet the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed on the above-stated facts. To grant any relief would only encourage multiplicity of proceedings by such litigants. I would. therefore, dismiss the petition. "in accordance with the directions contained in the majority judgment, the contemner received without any demur, the sum of Rs. 30,000. 00, thereby accepting the finally of the adjudication. But that was not to be and even though the majority judgment in Writ Petition No. 946 of 1986 had directed in unequivocal terms that the said order dated 7/03/1991, should be taken as the final order in these proceedings and the Registry would not be justified to entertain any fresh application of the contemner, it did not have the desired effect and on 4/10/1991, yet another writ petition bearing No. CC-15534 of 1992. was filed with the prayer to restore Writ Petition No. 946 of 1988 and Cri. Misc. Petition No. 3564 of 1989 in Cri. Review Petition Nos. 337-38 of 1985 and grant relief which had been earlier refused to him, after due consideration and reasoned judgments of this court in Writ Petition Nos. 4462 of 1978 and 946 of 1988. This was followed by an application for directions dated 10/12/1991. The above narration of facts shows how the contemner has abused the process of this court and exploited the indulgence shown to him. On the one hand he received the benefits of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 946 of 1988 by receiving Rs. 30,000. 00 and on the other hand he sought to have that judgment also reopened through another writ petition couched in highly objectionable language.;