Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29. 01.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA
Contempt Petition No.1273 of 2009
and
Sub Application No.400 of 2009
G.Rajaram .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. T.K.Rajendran, I.P.S.,
Director General of Police/Chairman
Thamizh Naadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board
Thamizh Naadu
Chennai 600 002
2. Polonath, I.P.S.,
Director General of Police/Vigilance
& Anti-corruption
Chennai 600 028
Formerly
Director General of Police/Chairman
Thamizh Naadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board
Chennai 600 002 .. Respondents
Petition under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970/71 to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 14.7.2009 made in Review Application No.48 of 2009.
For Petitioner :: Dr.A.E.Chelliah
Senior Counsel for
M/s C.Vasanthakumari Chelliah
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Thirugnanam
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
D.MURUGESAN, J.
The petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Grade II Police Constable in Chennai City Range and thereafter he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable. He acquired Bachelor Degree in History in the year 1996. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) invited applications for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98. After the said advertisement, the Board issued another memorandum indicating that the Graduate Head Constables and Constables are to be selected under the 20% quota. The procedure for selection contemplates three stages, namely, (i) physical efficiency test, (ii) written test and (iii) oral interview. To become eligible to take the written test, the candidates should pass physical efficiency test. Similarly, for a candidate to be called for oral interview, he should pass the written test. The selection was zonal wise.
2. The selection process was questioned by various candidates before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the zonal wise selection was invalid. The Tribunal allowed those original applications holding that the zonal wise selection procedure was impermissible under the special rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. That common order of the Tribunal was questioned in a batch of Writ Petition Nos.17639 to 17660 of 2000 etc., before this Court and the same were disposed of with certain directions by order dated 25.2.2005. Though the Division Bench held that the zonal wise selections were invalid, it did not interfere with the selections already made, as they were made in the year 1999. The Division Bench also directed in paragraph 73(vi) of the order as follows:-
"Such of the contesting respondents who were not called for interview, shall be called for interview and after coming out successful in the interview, if their cut-off marks is more than the last cut-off marks in the respective category, they shall be directed to undergo medical test and after following the usual formality of police verification about their antecedents, and in the event of those contesting respondents ultimately coming out successful, should be placed on probation and sent for police training which should be followed by their appointment and regularization as per the prescribed regulations."
Apparently, the said directions were issued taking note of the fact that the contesting respondents therein were not called for oral interview, though they had qualified in the written test.
3. As the petitioner was also not called for oral interview, he filed O.A.No.51 of 2003 questioning the selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98 under 20% quota for departmental candidates as well as 80% quota by way of direct recruitment. He also prayed that he should be called for oral interview for 80% quota. That application came to be transferred to the High Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.36003 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed on 10.11.2005 following the earlier Division Bench order dated 25.2.2005 made in W.P.No.17639 to 17660 of 2000 etc., batch.
4. Upto that stage, there was no problem. The State represented by the Secretary to Home Department, the Director General of Police and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board preferred Review Application No.73 of 2006 seeking for review of the order dated 10.11.2005. The review application was filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner had only competed under 20% quota and as per the conditions for selection, he should complete 100 metres running within 15 seconds. But he failed in that and therefore he was made ineligible to appear for the written test. It was also stated that the petitioner did not appear in the written test. In view of the above submission, the Division Bench found that the directions contained in paragraph 73(vi) of the order dated 25.2.2005 would not be applicable to the petitioner, as he had not only taken the written test but also failed in the physical efficiency test and therefore he was not eligible to be called for oral interview. With the said finding, the review application was allowed by order dated 31.7.2008 and the Writ Petition No.36003 of 2005 was dismissed. As against the order in the review application, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26669 of 2008 and the same was dismissed at the stage of admission. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Review Application No.48 of 2009 seeking for review of the judgment dated 31.7.2008 in Review Application No.73 of 2006 and to restore the earlier judgment dated 10.11.2005 in W.P.No.36003 of 2005. That review application was also dismissed by order dated 19.6.2009 apparently in view of the stand taken by the Government, namely, that the petitioner did not qualify in the physical efficiency test and he had not taken the written test as well.
5. It appears that subsequent to the above orders, the review application No.48 of 2009 was listed before the Court on 14.7.2009 under the caption for being mentioned apparently on the request of the learned Additional Advocate General himself. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear for the written test as against the 80% quota for direct recruitment, as the petitioner had also completed physical efficiency test In view of the said submission, the review application was again restored and was heard. It was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that since the petitioner who had competed from Chennai zone did not secure the cut-off marks compared to the candidates who had appeared from Chennai zone, he was not called for oral interview. However, the learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that since the cut-off marks in respect of Scheduled Caste candidates in respect of other zones were lower than the cut-off marks obtained by the petitioner, by applying paragraph 73(vi) of the judgment dated 25.2.2005, the petitioner was eligible to be called for interview. Having noticed the said submission, the Division Bench issued the following directions in paragraph 24:
"24. In view of such fair concession made by the learned Addl. Advocate General, we are inclined to allow the present Review Application No.48 of 2009 thereby reviewing our earlier judgment in Rev.Appln.No.73 of 2006 and restore the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.36003 of 2005. In order to avoid any confusion in the matter, we hereby issue a direction that the present petitioner shall be called for the interview and if, after taking into account the marks earlier obtained and the marks in such interview, the total marks would be more than the lowest cut-off mark in respect of a selected candidate in Scheduled Caste category, he shall be permitted to undergo medical test and after undergoing other formalities, if any, should be appointed in the post of Sub Inspector. This exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. The Review Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above."
6. For completion of the subsequent events to the above Court proceedings, we may also refer the following. By a memorandum dated 18.9.2009, the petitioner was directed to appear for oral interview on 25.9.2009. Accordingly, he appeared. Thereafter, he was served with the following memorandum dated 1.10.2009:
"Rc.No.D1/9050/2006 Office of the Director General of Police/Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 Dated: 01.10.2009 MEMORANDUM Sub: Recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-98 - Viva Voce conducted on 25.09.2009 Result intimated reg. ---
As per the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in Review Application No.48/2009 dated 14.07.2009, you were called for the Viva voce on 25.09.2009 for the recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998 under Open Category.In the Viva Voce you have secured 4.80 mark and in the written examination 46.4375, totally 51,2375. Since you did not obtain the lowest cut off mark for selection to the post of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1997-1998, you are not qualified for further process of selection.
Sd/-
for Chairman To Tr.G.Rajaram, HC 9275 D2 Anna Salai Law and Order Police Station, Chennai-2"
7. After receipt of the above memorandum, the petitioner issued a lawyers notice dated 9.10.2009 alleging disobedience of the Courts order and harassment, both physically, mentally and financially, meted out to the petitioner due to the false stand taken by the respondents, which resulted in the dismissal of not only the writ petition, but also the earlier review application and the special leave petition as well. The notice called upon the respondents to immediately appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the petitioner would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal action including a claim of Rs.50 lakhs towards compensation. As the said notice was not responded, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present contempt petition.
8. Dr.A.E.Chelliah, learned senior counsel, in support of the contempt petitioner, made his submission on two aspects. Firstly, the order of this Court dated 14.7.2009 was served on the respondents on 5.8.2009 and the petitioner should have been called for interview within a period of thirty days on or before 4.9.2009. As the interview was held only on 25.9.2009, the same would amount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. Secondly, the learned senior counsel would submit that right from the beginning, the petitioner has been agitating against the respondents failure to call the petitioner for oral interview on the ground that he had passed physical efficiency test and was also allowed to write the examination under 80% quota. Even after the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed as early as on 10.11.2005, the respondents, with a false claim that the petitioner did not take part in the written test, filed a review application and made this Court to pass an order setting aside the order passed in the writ petition. The respondents therefore made this petitioner to again file an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed only on the above submissions made by the respondents. As the petitioner had attended the written test for 80% quota with the absolute confidence that he will get justice, again approached this Court by filing another review application and even in that application the respondents took the very same stand, which resulted in the dismissal of that review application. Nevertheless, the matter was listed under the caption for being mentioned on 14.7.2009 only due to the fair approach of the learned Additional Advocate General who looked into the records and found that the petitioner had passed the physical efficiency test and had also taken the written test and that the earlier submission made before the Court was without complete instructions. Only under the above circumstances, in an unprecedented move, the Division Bench had to recall the earlier order in the review application disposed of against the petitioner. Therefore, due to the false representation made by the respondents which made this Court to pass adverse orders, the petitioner has suffered a lot, both physically, mentally and financially. On realizing the injustice done to the petitioner, this Court had revived the order and nevertheless, the petitioner was made to fail in the oral interview. Even the respondents have not explained as to how this 4.80 mark was awarded to the petitioner as against 15 marks, which would amount to not only arbitrary exercise of power, but also vindictive. Hence the learned senior counsel would submit that the respondents should be directed not only to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, but also should be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50 lakhs as has been prayed in Sub Application No.400 of 2009.
9. On the other hand, Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, so far as the first contention is concerned, has submitted that the copy of the order dated 14.7.2009 was received in the office of the Director General of Police on 5.8.2009. However, the said copy of the order was received in the office of the Chairman of the Board only on 21.8.2009 and the interview was conducted on 25.9.2009. Hence there is no disobedience muchless willful disobedience. As far as the non-selection of the petitioner is concerned, he would submit that the following are the lowest cut-off marks as against 80% marks open quota for provisional selection and 20% departmental quota for such selection:
80% quota 20% quota OC - 68.93 60.37 BC - 65.18 56.75 MBC- 62.37 54.93 SC/ST-57.43 43.75
10. As far as the 20% quota is concerned, the petitioner had failed in 100 metres running event, as he had not completed the running in 15 seconds, but had completed the same in 15.91 seconds. Therefore, he was not called for the written test. Though the petitioner had only secured 46.43 marks, he could not be called for interview as against 20% departmental quota in view of the above disqualification. As against the 80% quota, the lowest cut-off mark under Scheduled Caste category was 57.43 marks and that the petitioner, even after the interview, had secured only 51.2375 marks (46.43 + 4.80) and therefore he was not selected. There is absolutely no disobedience of the orders of this Court.
11. As far as the second contention is concerned, in all the earlier proceedings the petitioner had made the claim only for selection against 20% departmental quota and therefore only it was stated before the Court that he had not qualified in the physical efficiency test and he was not allowed to take the written test. There is absolutely no misstatement made before this Court. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the question of appointing the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector of Police as well as payment of compensation is totally unsustainable.
12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. As far as the first issue regarding the alleged disobedience of the order by the respondents in not conducting the oral interview within the time given by this Court and consequently the non-selection of the petitioner is concerned, it is to be pointed out that though the order of this Court was made on 14.7.2009, the copy of the order was admittedly served on the office of the Director General of Police on 5.8.2009. It is true that the Director General of Police is also a party to the proceedings. However, it must be noticed that the direction was only to the Chairman of the Board to hold the interview. The order of this Court was received in the Board only on 21.8.2009 and that the interview was conducted on 25.9.2009. From the above dates, it is clear that the interview was not conducted within the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Nevertheless, for consideration of the proceedings for contempt, the disobedience must be willful. On receipt of the order, a communication was sent to the petitioner on 18.9.2009 much prior to the time given by this Court. Of course, the interview was conducted beyond a period of thirty days i.e., beyond five days. Power to punish a person shall be used sparingly only when the disobedience is so willful which would constitute interference in the administration of justice. Failure to conduct interview within 30 days, in our considered view, cannot be said to be a willful disobedience. Hence we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there was a willful disobedience in not conducting the interview within the stipulated period.
13. As far as the submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner was given only 4.80 marks in a vindictive manner, we may point out that it is entirely outside the purview of the contempt proceedings to go into the reasoning by which the said marks were awarded to the petitioner. The basic question to be considered in the contempt petition is as to whether the direction for conduct of oral interview was complied with or not. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the petitioner had secured only 51.2375 marks as against the last candidate selected under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category who had secured 57.43 marks. It is also argued that as against the 15 marks available for interview, 10 marks were allotted for viva-voce and 5 marks for games and sports. The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner did not produce any certificate evidencing his participation in the games and sports. Therefore, the petitioner was not given any marks under the said category. For the remaining 10 marks, the Committee had awarded only 4.80 marks. He has also produced the minutes of the Committee signed by all the members. We have perused the said minutes, where the Chairman and the four members have given their respective marks and that the aggregate of the marks is 4.80. We have no reason to reject the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader in this regard. For the said reason, the first contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same is rejected and we do not find any disobedience on the part of the respondents.
14. Coming to the next contention, we may point out from the facts that the petitioner came out successful in the physical efficiency test and also participated in the written test as against the posts earmarked under 80% quota. Having noticed that that writ petition concerned with the 80% as well as 20% quota, it was allowed by this Court. A perusal of the communication dated 20.11.2002 from the Chairman cum Member Secretary of the Board shows that the petitioner was not called for interview, as he did not secure sufficient marks in the written test. This appears to be incorrect, rather a false statement as could be seen from the fair submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that he had secured higher marks than the other Scheduled Caste candidates in respect of the other zones who have secured lower cut-off marks. Therefore, the denial of the opportunity to the petitioner to attend the interview even at that stage was totally unjustifiable. Not stopping with that, the respondents, after the writ petition was allowed, had chosen to file a review application with the same averments that the petitioner did not write the written test and on that ground had made this Court to recall the order in the writ petition and consequently to allow the review application. The petitioner had again filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court, wherein again a similar stand was taken, which resulted in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents had also made a reference to one V.Ganesan, who had secured 45.35 marks and belonging to BC category and therefore the claim of the petitioner who had secured 46.43 marks under Scheduled Caste category was not considered by the Supreme Court. But later, it was admitted that the said Ganesan in fact belonged to Scheduled Caste category and he had secured only lesser marks than the petitioner and that the said statement made before the Supreme Court was also false. In fact before the Supreme Court, it was stated that the cut-off marks was 43.75 for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category and even then the petitioner was not called for interview. Having noticed the persistent stand taken by the respondents, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the facts, he again approached this Court by filing another review application seeking for review of the earlier order dated 31.7.2008 in the review application. That application also came to be dismissed solely on the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner did not participate in the written test and he did not complete 100 metres running in 15 seconds. The respondents had completely suppressed the fact that the petitioner had participated in the written test as against the open quota and he was eligible to be called for interview, as the other Scheduled Caste candidates who have secured lesser marks were called for interview. This review application also came to be dismissed. All the attempts of the petitioner were not fruitful till the matter was listed under the caption for being mentioned due to the fair approach and the consequent fair submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Additional Advocate General had fairly submitted that the petitioner was successful in the physical efficiency test and had also taken the written test as against the 80% quota and that the candidates under Scheduled Caste category who had secured lower marks had been called for interview. The grievance of the petitioner should be addressed in the above background and on a long legal battle from the year 2003.
15. From the facts which we have narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner had been made to suffer a lot either by filing writ petition or review application or special leave petition and/or defending the review application filed by the respondents. This had certainly resulted in not only physical, but also mental harassment to the petitioner apart from financial implications. To this extent, the grievance of the petitioner must be accepted and must be addressed keeping in mind the justification in the claim.
16. The power of Court to entertain and consider the act of contempt of Court is two fold. The Court is empowered to proceed against a contemner for civil contempt as well as criminal contempt in terms of the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act either with regard to the alleged disobedience of the Court's orders or in regard to the interference or obstruction to the administration of justice. Apart from the said power, this Court being a Court of record, is empowered to punish for contempt of itself in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The High Courts are the superior Courts of record and they have inherent and plenary powers independent of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The power of the High Court to punish for contempt can exclusively be based on Article 215 of the Constitution of India. As against the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act fixing a specified punishment, Article 215 does not restrict the power of the Court to impose the punishment which it considers to be appropriate and justifiable. Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, though the High Court is empowered to only impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months and send the contemner to civil prison and impose a fine upto a maximum of Rs.2,000/-, under Article 215 of the Constitution, all that the High Court should consider as to whether the quantum of punishment and for that matter, the nature of the orders be it by way of cost or compensation, could meet the ends of justice.
17. The laws and rules governing contempt have developed overtime and given wide discretion to the Courts in determining both what constitutes contempt and how it should be dealt with. As against the imposition of punishment where the Court would consider the willful disobedience of the orders of the Court, while awarding costs or compensation, the Court must also consider the prejudice and hardship caused to the complainant due to the act of the contemner and such prejudice and hardship must be real and the interference in the administration of justice is substantial.
18. The rule of law is a fundamental feature of our Constitution. The right to obtain judicial redress is a feature of its basic structure. The law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary and judicial process. The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserve and maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form and purity. Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving a person from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interference with the administration of justice. The power of contempt behoves the Court to act with due circumspection making appropriate allowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits. In the event a citizen is denied justice to which he is entitled due to the act of another, such citizen must be reasonably compensated. Even a possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration and action.
19. The Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 3469, while considering the willful violation of various orders passed by the Court by a hot mix plant industry in regard to its hazardous and noxious activities, had finally imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited to the Registry of the Apex Court, out of which 50% of the amount shall be paid to the Delhi Pollution Control Board and the remaining 50% shall be paid to the Advocate (Amicus Curiae) who assisted the Court. The Apex Court had considered the provisions of Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Sections 19 & 31 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The power to order imposition of costs is apparently in view of the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of India which empowers the Apex Court to punish for contempt of itself.
20. In Banwarlal v. G.Kalavathi, (2008) 11 SCC 547, the Apex Court was considering the allegation of contempt of Court against the State authorities for disobeying the orders of status quo. The Apex Court granted three months time to the authorities to maintain status quo on 14.9.95. Though the Apex Court found that the said order was violated, it did not proceed with the State authorities for committing contempt, as the contempt petition itself was filed after a period of four years. Nevertheless, the Court directed the payment of compensation of Rs.15,000/- per square yarn to be paid by the State authorities to the complainant. In fact a sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the High Court was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. It is not anything new for the Courts to consider the award of compensation in case the Court finds that the affected person must be suitably compensated for the act of the respondents which had resulted in unfavourable orders to such affected persons.
21. Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Advocate General, High Court of A.P. v. Executive Engineer, R & B, Pithapuram, E.G.Dist and others, 1998 (1) ALT 209 has imposed costs of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of Court work as the Court work suffered for three days and the amount to be deposited to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of two months.
22. But in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to consider the question of award of compensation to the affected complainant himself. As already referred, the petitioner who was otherwise entitled to be called for interview as against 80% quota as early as in the year 1997 was denied such interview. He was made to approach the Administrative Tribunal and again this Court in prosecuting his writ petition. Even though he secured an order in his favour, that order got to be reversed by incorrect statements made by the respondents and by filing review application. The petitioner was again made to approach the Supreme Court, but was unsuccessful again only because of the incorrect statements made by the respondents. Not stopping with that, the petitioner was again made to approach this Court by way of another review application which was also dismissed on the incorrect statement made by the respondents. The incorrect statements were on two aspects, viz., with regard to the petitioner's written examination under 80% quota and one V.Ganesan who was a Scheduled Caste candidate and had secured lesser marks was allowed to attend the interview, whereas the petitioner who had secured more marks than the said Ganesan was not allowed and when the same was sought to be justified by the respondents, on a further false claim that the said Ganesan belonged to Backward Community, which later on turned to be false, as he also belonged to Scheduled Caste.
23. The respondents being the administrators and the executives of the State would be certainly entitled to defend the Government in a litigation before the Court. That does not mean that such a defence can extend to file a counter affidavit contrary to the records. The officers who are otherwise entitled to defend the State are only in the capacity of persons assisting the Court. They should be not only fair to the litigant, but also to the Court. The counter affidavit should reflect the true and correct position as borne out in the records. Any statements made by way of counter affidavit which are not in conformity with the records would certainly amount to incorrect, rather false statements and if any proceedings are disposed of by way of passing adverse orders against the person who has approached the Court on those statements, it would amount to interference with the administration of justice on the one side and for award of compensation to such person who had visited with such orders on other side. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Dhannanjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1955 SC 1795, wherein it has been observed as follows:
"Any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amount to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake?"
The Apex Court in Secretary Hailakandi Bar Association v. State of Assam, 1996 (9) SCC 74, while considering a similar case of filing false report, has held as follows:-
"The contemner deliberately forwarded an inaccurate report with a view to mislead the court and thereby interfered with the due course of justice by attempting to obstruct the court from reaching a correct conclusion. He is, therefore, guilty of contempt of court under Article 129 read with Section 12 of the Act. "
24. The aforesaid judgments were quoted by a Division Bench of this Court in M.Balakrishnan v. B.Murugesan, 2000 (II) CTC 93. We may also usefully refer to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in awarding costs of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, to be paid by the contemner on holding that a false affidavit has been filed before the Court in Sunkara Lakshmi Narasimma v. Shaai Subbaraju, (2009) 7 SCC 460.
25. For all our above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant must be reasonably compensated on the facts of the given case. This takes us to the next question as to the actual quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to. In matters like this, it would be very difficult for the Courts to follow any uniform yardstick in arriving at the quantum of compensation, as it depends upon the facts of each case. We may point out that had the petitioner been allowed to participate in the interview in the year 1998 itself when the selections were made, things would have been different and he would have faced the interview with full courage and confidence and it was also possible that he would have been selected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. At least from the year 2003 when he filed the Original Application, he has been made to wait for justice. Though he secured an order in his favour in the year 2005, he was not called for interview, as the said order was later on recalled. He was called for interview only in the year 2009 after a period of four years and after he was made to undergo the ordeal physically, mentally and financially, certainly one cannot expect that the petitioner will do well in the interview with that atmosphere in his mind. The financial implications also must be taken into consideration in defending not only the review applications, but also the special leave petition. In these circumstances, we quantify the compensation to be paid to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The defence taken by the respondents with incorrect particulars have been made long back and this Court cannot directly find fault the officers who are currently incharge or those who were impleaded as respondents. We are told that those officers had already retired from service. In view of the act of the officers, the State alone is liable to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts, we direct that the quantified amount shall be paid as compensation to the petitioner by the State from out of the funds earmarked for police department and the said amount shall be paid on or before 15.3.2010. Before parting with this order, we are constrained to observe that while the Government is defended by their officers, such officers should approach the Court with fair mind and understanding that they are only assisting the Court in the process of defending the Government and they must put forth only the true facts which are reflected in the records and any deviation in the statements which are contrary to the record would amount to filing of a false statement before the Court and would obviously result in interference with the administration of justice. They should also not forget that every law abiding citizen expects that justice alone must win and any attempt to tamper the judicial process would necessarily result in destroying the very judicial system itself.
26. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the contempt petition and the sub application are ordered accordingly.
Index : yes (D.M.,J.) (P.P.S.J.,J.) Internet: yes 29.01.2010 ss D.MURUGESAN, J. AND P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA, J. Order in Contempt Petition No.1273 of 2009 & Sub Application No.400 of 2009 29.01.2010