R.S. SEHRAWAT versus RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS. on 5 September 2018

634

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 634

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

R.S. SEHRAWAT

v.

RAJEEV MALHOTRA & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2006)

BSEPTEMBER 05, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19(1)(b) – Contempt ofcourt – Reconstruction of the unauthorised constructions – On facts,writ petition by the respondent seeking action against appellant-Cjunior engineer and others involved in the incident of demolitionalleging that they first permitted to carry on unauthorisedconstruction on the property and later on unilaterally demolishedthe structure – Suo motu action by the High Court as per the earlierorder in PIL restraining unauthorised constructions’ in unauthorisedDcolonies – Issuance of notices to appellant – Filing of affidavits byappellant and other officers – Conviction of the appellant forcommitting contempt of court holding that the appellant-juniorengineer by filing false affidavit, attempted to mislead the courtand his acts tended to substantially interfere with the due course ofjustice – On appeal, held: Appellant was not served with any chargesEmuchless specific charge which he was expected to meet – HighCourt made no attempt to verify or examine the contemporaneousrecord relied upon by the appellant – High Court ought to havetested the authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record– Affidavit so filed cannot be termed as incorrect or misleading – ItFcannot be held that the demolition work undertaken was not inconformity with the position reflected in the contemporaneousoffice submissions/record and photographs submitted by appellantto his superior authority – Thus, the order passed by the DivisionBench of High Court set aside and show cause notices issued toappellant are dropped.G

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 It is evident that the High Court took suo motuaction as it was prima facie convinced that unauthorisedconstruction was carried out in the Farms despite the direction H

Conclusion

contained in the order in a writ petition. The order also recordsthat the show cause notice was accepted by the officers presentin Court. The appellant, like other officers, filed his affidavitrevealing the relevant facts concerning him. The appellant hadexplained the factual position as to the action of demolition ofunauthorised structures in the Farms during the relevant periodas per the task assigned to him by his superior officers andreporting of that fact to his superiors by way of contemporaneousoffice submission. The correctness of the said contemporaneousoffice reports could not be and has not been questioned or doubtedas such. The reply affidavit makes it amply clear that theCommissioner of the Corporation was personally supervising thedemolition work of unauthorised constructions and, therefore,there was no reason to doubt the contemporaneous record in theform of office submissions and photographs reinforcing the factof demolition. The report of the Committee of advocates,however, was based on the site visit made in January, 2001 aftera gap of more than 6 months from 7[th] June, 2000 and 3 monthsfrom 14[th] September, 2000 when the demolition was actuallycarried out. The factual position stated in the said report,therefore, may not be the actual position as obtained on the dateof demolition. It is not unknown that such unauthorised structurescould be and were reconstructed overnight after the demolitionwork is undertaken by the officials. That was done by unscrupulouspersons clandestinely and without notice. The factual positionstated in the reply affidavit filed by the appellant also reveals thatcontinuous follow-up action was being taken in respect ofunauthorised structures including those which were demolished.Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from the concernedward w.e.f. 27[th] September, 2000 and any development or illegalactivity unfolding after that date cannot be attributed to theappellant. All these aspects have not been considered by the HighCourt. [Para 9] [641-G-H; 642-A-F]

Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradeshand Others (2010) 3 SCC 705 : [2010] 2 SCR 1086 ;Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v.Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 496 : [2011]5 SCR 329 ; Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Syed Hasibur AB

CDEF

G

H

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

ARahaman and Ors. Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. SyedHasibur Rahaman and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 739 :[2001] 2 SCR 471 – referred to.

1.2 Going by the material on record it is not possible toconclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant hadBcontributed to the reconstruction of the unauthorised structurebefore or after 27[th] September, 2000. Furthermore, the appellantwas not served with any charges muchless specific charge whichhe was expected to meet. Yet, the final conclusion in the impugnedjudgment is that the acts of the appellant tended to substantiallyinterfere with the due course of justice and amounted toCcommitting criminal contempt of court for having filed incorrectaffidavit. The High Court made no attempt to verify or examinethe contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant insupport of his plea that the factual position stated in the affidavitfiled by him was borne out and reinforced from the said record.DThe affidavit so filed cannot be termed as incorrect ormisleading by relying on the report of the advocates’ committee,which was prepared after a gap of 6 months from the date of firstdemolition and 3 months from the second demolition.[Para 12] [645-D-E]

E1.3 The finding recorded by the High Court that theproperty was not razed to the ground based on the reportprepared in January, 2001, therefore, is not the correct approachand is manifestly wrong. The High Court ought to have testedthe authenticity and veracity of the contemporaneous record inthe form of office submissions, Misel Band register, office files,Fnotices, photograph and press reports etc. relied upon by theappellant. It would be a different matter if the contemporaneousrecord did not support the stand taken by the appellant in theaffidavits filed by him. As a matter of fact, the appellant hasalready faced departmental enquiry in which the matter in issueGhas been exhaustively dealt with and the plea taken by theappellant has been found to be correct. [Para 13] [645-G-H;646-A-B]

1.4 The specific stand taken by the appellant was notconsidered by the High Court at all. The appellant made thisH

grievance in the review petition, but of no avail. It is not possibleto hold that the demolition work undertaken on 7[th] June, 2000and 14[th] September 2000 was not in conformity with the positionreflected in the contemporaneous office submissions/record andphotographs submitted by the appellant to his superiorauthority. As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed onthe singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded againsthim without framing formal charges or furnishing such chargesto him; and moreso because filing of affidavit by the appellantwas supported by contemporaneous official record, which cannotbe termed as an attempt to obstruct the due course ofadministration of justice. [Paras 16, 17] [648-C-E]

AB

C

1.5 The impugned judgment and orders passed by theDivision Bench of High Court of Delhi are quashed and set asideand the show cause notices issued to the appellant pursuant tothe order of the Division Bench of the High Court are herebydropped. [Para 18] [648-F-G]

D

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 684 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2001 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. No. 820 of 2001 in CWP No. 6734 of2000 and order dated 10.05.2006 in R.A. No. 6600 of 2001 in CWPNo. 6734 of 2000 respectively.

F

K. Radhakrishnan, A.C., Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Advs., AshokMathur, Ms. Asha G. Nair, R. K. Rathore, Mrs. R. Bhardwaj, Raj Bahadur,Mrs. Anil Katiyar, P. Parmeswaran, Praveen Swarup, V. K. Verma,Advs. for the appearing parties.

G

638SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section19 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, assails the judgment andorders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in C.M. No.820 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 1[st] June,B2001 and in R.A. No.6600 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated10[th] May, 2006 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of filingfalse affidavit and attempting to mislead the Court, thus committingcontempt of court by his acts which were of such a nature that theytended to substantially interfere with the due course of justice. Theappellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a periodCof 30 (Thirty) days and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty FiveThousand Only). Review petition against the said decision came to bedismissed on 10[th] May, 2006.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant was working as a Junior Engineerin Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The writ petitionerD(respondent No.1 herein) had alleged that the appellant and otherofficials, including police officials had, by their act of commission andomission, first permitted the writ petitioner to carry on unauthorisedconstruction on the property bearing Plot No.37-C measuring 834 squareyards at Asoka Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and later onEunilaterally demolished the said structure. This was the grievance madein Civil Writ Petition No.6734 of 2000 filed by respondent No.1.Respondent No.1 had prayed for taking action against the appellant andother officials including police officials involved in the alleged incident ofdemolition of the structure. The Division Bench of the High Courtadverting to the direction issued in Public Interest Litigation bearing C.W.P.FNo.7441 of 1993 dated November 3, 1997 restraining unauthorisedconstructions in unauthorised colonies, issued notice on 6[th] December,2000 in the present writ petition to the officers of the MCD and thepolice personnel who were posted during the time the construction wasraised on the plot belonging to respondent No.1, to show cause as toGwhy proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated againstthem.

3. After receipt of notice, the appellant, as well as other officials,filed their respective affidavits. The appellant filed his detailed affidaviton 3[rd] January, 2001 inter alia pointing out the primary responsibility of H

the officials who were expected to comply with the directions issued onNovember 3, 1997 by the High Court. As regards his role in the capacityof Junior Engineer, the appellant asserted that he discharged the taskassigned to him from time to time by his superior officers and submittedcompliance reports to them in that behalf. He further asserted that hehad undertaken 14 major demolition actions in Sainik Farms alonebetween 7[th] March, 2000 and 27[th] September, 2000 and razed theseconstructions to the ground. It was asserted that the writ petitionerillegally constructed the building at the same location inspite of thedemolition action taken on the earlier occasions. In support of thecontention that he had resorted to the demolition of concerned structure,he placed reliance on the office submission made by him to his superiorsas well as the photographs of the structures taken before and after thedemolition drive. The stand taken by the appellant was contested byrespondent No.1. To verify the factual position, the High Court videorder dated 12[th] January, 2001 appointed a Committee of advocates toinspect the site and submit a fact finding report. That report wassubmitted to the High Court by the Committee of advocates on 23[rd]January, 2001.

4. The High Court vide order dated 24[th] January, 2001 afterrecording its prima facie opinion issued show cause notice to theconcerned officials including the appellant as to why they should not beconvicted and punished for contempt of court. After the said order, theappellant filed a further affidavit dated 8[th] February, 2001 and reiteratedthe stand taken in the earlier affidavit as also explained the position ofpossibility of reconstruction on the same location after the demolitionwas done on 7[th] June, 2000 and 14[th]/15[th] September, 2000. Theappellant also relied on contemporaneous evidence such as the reportand photographs of the demolition. The High Court, however, was notimpressed by the explanation offered by the appellant and proceeded torecord finding of guilt against the appellant for filing false affidavit onJanuary 3, 2001. The appellant preferred a review petition which wasdismissed on 10[th] May, 2006. As a result, the appellant has challengedboth the orders by way of the present appeal.

5. The principal grievance of the appellant is that no proper chargewas framed and conveyed to the appellant. The first show cause noticeissued to the appellant in terms of order dated 6[th] December, 2000 waspresumably for non-compliance of the direction given on November 3, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1997 in C.W.P. No.7441 of 1993; whereas the second show causenotice issued to the appellant pursuant to order dated 24[th] January, 2001was for filing an incorrect and misleading affidavit dated 3[rd] January,2001. The appellant had revealed the factual position in his affidavitdated 3[rd] January, 2001 and further affidavit dated 8[th] February, 2001.The factual position stated in the said affidavits has not been analysedBby the High Court at all, much less in its proper perspective. On thecontrary, the High Court, proceeded to record a finding of guilt, beingswayed away by the factual position recorded in the report submitted bythe Committee of advocates, completely overlooking the plausibleexplanation offered by the appellant that the unauthorised structure inCquestion was demolished on 7[th] June, 2000 and again on 14[th]/15[th]September, 2000. The contemporaneous record regarding the extent ofdemolition in the form of office submission, press reports andphotographs was also brought to the notice of the High Court. However,that has been overlooked. The grievance of the appellant is that in theaffidavit dated 8[th] February, 2001 a specific disclosure was made aboutDthe video recording done by news channels and liberty to play the videoclippings was sought but the High Court did not deal with this request ofthe appellant at all. The time period between the demolition and theinspection by the Committee of advocates being quite substantial, thepossibility of reconstruction of the structures in question could not beEruled out. However, the High Court has not dealt with this aspect.

6. The respondent No.1 and the Amicus Curiae espousing thecause of the respondent No.1, would, however, contend that there is noerror in the approach or the conclusion recorded by the High Court.

7. We have heard Mr. Ashok Mathur advocate for the appellant,FMr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing as amicuscuriae and Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior counsel for therespondent.

8. As noted earlier, action against the appellant and otherofficials was initiated by the High Court in terms of order datedG6[th] December, 2000. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:

“............

In the instant petition, unauthorized construction was carried outin Sainik Farm which happens to be an unauthorized colony. It is not disputed that the petitioner started construction on Plot No.37Cmeasuring 834 Sq. Yds. At Ashoka Avenue, Sainki Farm, NewDelhi, in July 2000. The building was allowed to come up andwhen it was nearing completion the same was demolished on30.10.2000. We fail to understand as to how the building activitycould be permitted/allowed from July 2000 till October 2000 whenorder of this court dated November 3, 1997 was in force. It primafacie appears to us that the building in question could not havecome up unless the concerned officers of the MCD and thePolice connived with the petitioner. The allegation of thepetitioner is that he paid bribes to various offices for raising theconstruction. He has named those officers.

In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to issuenotices to the following officers of the MCD and the Police, whowere posted during the time the construction was raised on theplot in question, to show cause why proceedings for contempt ofcourt be not initiated against them:

1. Mr. R.S. Sherawat (JE) MCD

2. Mr. U.S. Chowhan (JE) MCD

3. Mr. S.R. Bhardwaj, A.E. South zone Building DepartmentMCD.

4. Mr. Puran Singh Rawat, Baildar, MCD

5. Mr. Rakesh Baildar, MCD

6. Mr. Man Mohan, S.I. Chowki Incharge, Sainik Farms

7. Mr. V.K. Malhotra, Ex. Engineer MCD

8. Mr. Vir Singh, SHO.

The aforesaid officers are present and they accept notice. Theyare granted two weeks time to file affidavits in reply to the showcause notice. Pleadings in the writ petition be completed beforethe next date.”

9. On a bare perusal of this order, it is evident that the High Courttook suo motu action as it was prima facie convinced that unauthorisedconstruction was carried out in Sainik Farms despite the directioncontained in order dated November 3, 1997 in C.W.P. No.7441 of 1993.The order also records that the show cause notice was accepted by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aofficers present in Court. The appellant, like other officers, filed hisaffidavit revealing the relevant facts concerning him vide affidavit dated3[rd] January, 2001. The appellant had explained the factual position as tothe action of demolition of unauthorised structures in Sainik Farmsduring the relevant period as per the task assigned to him by his superiorofficers and reporting of that fact to his superiors by way ofBcontemporaneous office submission. The correctness of the saidcontemporaneous office reports could not be and has not beenquestioned or doubted as such. The reply affidavit makes it amply clearthat the Commissioner of the Corporation was personally supervisingthe demolition work of unauthorised constructions and, therefore, thereCwas no reason to doubt the contemporaneous record in the form ofoffice submissions and photographs reinforcing the fact of demolition.The report of the Committee of advocates, however, was based on thesite visit made in January, 2001 after a gap of more than 6 months from7[th] June, 2000 and 3 months from 14[th] September, 2000 when thedemolition was actually carried out. The factual position stated in theDsaid report, therefore, may not be the actual position as obtained on thedate of demolition i.e. 7[th] June, 2000 and 14[th] September, 2000. It is notunknown that such unauthorised structures could be and werereconstructed overnight after the demolition work is undertaken by theofficials. That was done by unscrupulous persons clandestinely andEwithout notice. The factual position stated in the reply affidavit filed bythe appellant also reveals that continuous follow-up action was beingtaken in respect of unauthorised structures including those which weredemolished. Furthermore, the appellant was transferred from theconcerned ward w.e.f. 27[th] September, 2000 and any development orillegal activity unfolding after that date cannot be attributed to theFappellant. All these aspects have not been considered by the High Court.

10. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant has alsobrought on record a fact that he had faced departmental action on thebasis of same set of facts regarding his acts of commission and omissionfor the following three charges:G

“Shri R.S. Sehrawat while functioning as JE (B) in BuildingDepartment, South Zone and remained incharge of the area ofSainik Farm w.e.f. 07.03.2000 to 27.09.2000, committed grossmisconduct on the following counts:

H

1. He is connivance with the owner/builders allowed them to carryout and complete the unauthorized construction in P.Nos 37-C,49, H-541, Sainik Farms unabatedly and did not take effectiveaction to stop/demolish the same at its initial/ongoing stage.

2. He also did not book the said unauthorized construction in SainikFarm just to avoid demolition action u/s 343/344 of the DMCAct.

3. He also submitted wrong affidavit in the High Courtmentioning therein that unauthorized construction in P.No.49and H-541, Sainik Farms were demolished but the same werefound still existing at site. Thus, he mislead the Hon’ble HighCourt.

He, thereby contravened Rule 3 (I) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to the employees ofthe MCD.”

Notably, the appellant has been exonerated in the said enquiry by a detailed report analysing all the official records supportingthe stand of the appellant.

11. Be that as it may, the law relating to contemptproceedings has been restated in the case of Sahdeo Alias SahdeoSingh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[1] in paragraph 27 asfollows:

“27. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that theHigh Court has a power to initiate the contempt proceedings suomotu for ensuring the compliance with the orders passed by theCourt. However, contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal innature, the same standard of proof is required in the samemanner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor isentitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which areprovided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt.There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration ofjustice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambitof the said provision. The alleged contemnor is to be informed asto what is the charge, he has to meet. Thus, specific charge hasto be framed in precision. The alleged contemnor may ask the A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

A

ACourt to permit him to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. thedeponents of affidavits, who have deposed against him. In spiteof the fact that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal innature, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter called “CrPC”) and the Evidence Act are notattracted for the reason that proceedings have to be concludedBexpeditiously. Thus, the trial has to be concluded as early aspossible. The case should not rest only on surmises andconjectures. There must be clear and reliable evidence tosubstantiate the allegations against the alleged contemnor. Theproceedings must be concluded giving strict adherence to theCstatutory rules framed for the purpose.”

C

We may usefully refer to two other decisions dealing with theissue under consideration. In Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner ofPolice, Chennai Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr.,[2] this Courtobserved thus:

D

“15. Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil whichmust be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution shouldbe ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest ofjustice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima faciecase of ‘deliberate falsehood’ on a matter of substance and theEcourt should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation forthe charge.”

“17. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature,burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminalcases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rulesFframed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubtkeeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to thebenefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishmentin contempt proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the courtcannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merelyon conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contemptGproceeding being quasi-criminal in nature require strict adherenceto the procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in suchproceedings.”

2 (2011) 5 SCC 496H

In Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. Vs. Syed Hasibur Rahaman andOrs.,[3] this Court observed thus:

“14. The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed atthis juncture, viz., the burden of standard of proof. The commonEnglish phrase ‘he who asserts must prove’ has its dueapplication in the matter of proof of the allegations said to beconstituting the act of contempt. As regards the ‘standard of proof’,be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdictionof the court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of CourtsAct is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof requiredis that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to beestablished beyond reasonable doubt....”

12. In the present case, going by the material on record it is notpossible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant hadcontributed to the reconstruction of the unauthorised structure before orafter 27[th] September, 2000. Furthermore, the appellant was not servedwith any charges muchless specific charge which he was expected tomeet. Yet, the final conclusion in the impugned judgment is that the actsof the appellant tended to substantially interfere with the due course ofjustice and amounted to committing criminal contempt of court forhaving filed incorrect affidavit. The High Court made no attempt to verifyor examine the contemporaneous record relied upon by the appellant insupport of his plea that the factual position stated in the affidavit filed byhim was borne out and reinforced from the said record. The affidavit sofiled cannot be termed as incorrect or misleading by relying on thereport of the advocates’ committee, which was prepared after a gap of6 months from the date of first demolition (7[th] June, 2000) and 3 monthsfrom the second demolition (14[th] September, 2000).

13. The finding recorded by the High Court that the property wasnot razed to the ground based on the report prepared in January, 2001,therefore, is not the correct approach and is manifestly wrong. The HighCourt ought to have tested the authenticity and veracity of thecontemporaneous record in the form of office submissions, Misel Bandregister, office files, notices, photograph and press reports etc. relied 3 (2001) 3 SCC 739

A

BC

DEF

G

Aupon by the appellant. It would be a different matter if thecontemporaneous record did not support the stand taken by theappellant in the affidavits filed by him dated 3[rd] January, 2001 and 8[th]February, 2001 respectively. As a matter of fact, the appellant has al-ready faced departmental enquiry in which the matter in issue has beenexhaustively dealt with and the plea taken by the appellant has beenBfound to be correct.

14. Be that as it may, the appellant has been found guilty inreference to the notice issued in terms of order dated 24[th] January, 2001,the relevant portion whereof reads thus:

C“Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out in theaffidavit of Mr. R.S. Sehrawat, it is mentioned that propertyNos.49 and H-541 were demolished on 7[th] June, 2000 and14[th] September, 2000 respectively. Mr. Awasthy has shownphotographs of these properties. From the photographs, it appearsthat the properties are intact and were not demolished, thereforeDwe are prima facie of the opinion that even Mr. Sehrawat hastaken liberties with truth. Issue notices to Mr. U.S. Chauhan andMr. R.S. Sehrawat, Junior Engineers, MCD, to show cause whythey should not be convicted and punished for contempt of Court.Let the affidavits in response be filed by 6[th] February, 2001.”

E

15. In response to the second notice given to the appellant, hefiled a further affidavit dated 8[th] February, 2001 to urge as under:

“3. That the deponent submits that the deponent had not filed anyfalse affidavit, nor did the deponent take liberties with truth whilefiling the affidavit on 3.1.2001 before this Hon’ble Court. I stateFthat in the order dated 24.1.2001, qua the deponent it has beenrecorded that properties No.49 and H-541, which weredemolished by the deponent on 7.6.2000 and on 14.9.2000/15.9.2000 were not demolished as per the report of the commit-tee appointed by this Hon’ble Court and the photographs of theseGproperties.

4. That the deponent submits that property No.49 wasdemolished on 7.6.2000 and the photo copies of the photographsof the existing building before demolition and after demolition havealready been filed by the deponent along with the deponent’s H

affidavit filed on 3.1.2001. The deponent is filing photocopies offurther photographs of the demolished property. I further statethat the press had prior information for the demolition to becarried out at Sainik Farms on 7.6.2000 and the pressphotographers and reporters were at Sainik Farms. Thephotograph of the demolished building at 49, Sainik Farm wastaken by the photographers of some news papers. The times ofIndia, edition dated 8.6.2000 showed the demolished structure.This is independent evidence which corroborates the stand of thedeponent. I further state that the video team of the Doordarshanvideo taped the demolition of 49 Sainik Farms and the clippingswere shown in the programme “Aaj Tak” on 7.6.2000 itself at 10P.M. I crave indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to summon thevideo film from the Doordarshan Authorities prepared for theprogramme Aaj Tak telecasted on 7.6.2000. I state that the ownerof the property has reconstructed the same after its earlierdemolition. I state that as stated by me in the earlier affidavit filedby the deponent, I was no longer assigned the work of Juniorengineer for Sainik Farms after 27.9.2000 and the structure hasbeen re-erected, only thereafter. I state that during my tenure asJunior Engineer incharge of Sainik Farms only one property wasbearing No.49 Sainik Farms, which was demolished by me.

5. That as regards property No. H-541, Sainik Farms, I state thatthe committee report has not referred to the same. However,29.1.2001, I visited the site of the said property and state that thesaid property has also been reconstructed after the earlierdemolition carried out by me. I state that the reconstructedproperty is still in the process of finishing and painting work is stillgoing on in the property. I state that the committee members shouldbe requested by this Hon’ble Court to immediately report whetherthe buildings are in the process of being painted or has beenrecently completed and painted as the same would show and proveits reconstruction. I have already filed the photographs showingthe demolished property by me along with my earlier affidavit.

6. That I state that as already stated by me in my affidavit filedbefore this Hon’ble Court on 3.1.2001, the Commissioner of theCorporation was weekly reviewing the activities at Sainik Farms AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand the Zonal Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Zonewere also personally supervising the demolition operationscarried out by me. The reports of the said Zonal Engineer andExecutive Engineers should also be called.

7. That I state that I should be given an opportunity to leadBevidence of the press photographers, Doordarshan team whichvideo taped the demolitions on 7.6.2000 as also the evidence ofthe Zonal Engineer and Executive Engineer to prove that I hadcarried out the demolitions and have not filed any affidavit norhave taken liberties with truth.”

C16. This specific stand taken by the appellant has not beenconsidered by the High Court at all. The appellant made this grievancein the review petition, but of no avail. In our opinion, it is not possible tohold that the demolition work undertaken on 7[th] June, 2000 and14[th] September 2000 was not in conformity with the position reflected inthe contemporaneous office submissions/record and photographsDsubmitted by the appellant to his superior authority.

17. As a matter of fact, the appellant ought to succeed on thesingular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded against him withoutframing formal charges or furnishing such charges to him; and moresobecause filing of affidavit by the appellant was supported byEcontemporaneous official record, which cannot be termed as an attemptto obstruct the due course of administration of justice. Accordingly, thisappeal ought to succeed.

18. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and orders passedby the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M.FNo.820 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 1[st] June, 2001 and inR.A. No.6600 of 2001 in C.W.P. No.6734 of 2000 dated 10[th] May, 2006are quashed and set aside and the show cause notices issued to theappellant pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of the HighCourt dated 6[th] December, 2000 and dated 24[th] January, 2001 are herebyGdropped. Appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

H