Saraf Investigators vs S.K.Dhar

Briefly stated, the petitioner was working as Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the respondent Company, when on 21.1.1993, it was

communicated to him that his services shall not be utilized until further orders. The office order, issued on 21.1.1993, said that the services of M/S

Saraf Investigators Private Limited will not be utilized till further orders. The petitioner challenged this orders in SWPNo.549/1993. On 3rd. of

May, 1993, while issuing notice to respondent No.2 only i.e. Senior Divisional Manager DOI Natioal Insurance Company Shalamar Raod,

Jammu, the Court further directed:

Issue notice in the CMP also to the same respondent returnable within the same period. In the meanwhile, subject to the objections of the other

side, the order impugned contained in annexures p/3 and p/4 shall not be acted upon and the petitioners shall be allowed to function as usual till the

matter is considered by the court

The matter came up again before the court on July 22nd, 1993, when the court passed an order in the following terms: ""After hearing learned

counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting upon the legal pleas raised, it is

directed that consequent upon the order impugned in this petition, the respondents shall complete the enquiry against the petitioner within a period

of three months from today and in case the enquiry is not completed within this period, the order impugned in this petition shall be deemed to have

been set

aside after the expiry on the a foresaid period of three months. This arrangement is arrived at with the concurrence of learned counsel for the

parties. In view of this order, the interim direction issued in the case shall stand vacated and CMP No. 1354/93 disposed of.

The petitioner is a Surveyor and Loss Assessor and surveyor registered under registration No. (sic) with the Registrar of Companies, J and K.

According to the petitioner, he is also registered with Controller of Insurance, Government of India and a licence has been issued In his favour

hearing licence No. SLA 26/72/8994/Rep/. The petitioner submits that as licensed Surveyor/ Loss Assessor, he is entitled to make the assessment

of the insurance claims relating to fire, motor, marine and engineering. Each and every company dealing has a panel... of all such Surveyors and

loss Assessors, and they are alloted work on turn basis in a proportional manner. The effect of the letters of suspension was that the petitioner was

denied the allotment of work by the respondent Company. Since he had been rendered workless, the time was of essence and therefore, the court

had directed that the enquiry against him shall be completed within three months. According to the petitioner, after the expiry of period of three

months from the date, order referred to above was passed, he approached the respondent contemnor and told him that in view of the order of the

Court, the earlier letters of suspension should be treated as nonexistent and he should be alloted the work. He further submits that since the

respondent did not allot him the work and declined to honour the order of the court, he was forced to send him a notice through his counsel on

23.10.1993 through registered AD cover. This notice was addressed to Regional Manager, but a copy thereof was sent to respondent/Senior

Divisional Manager. He further submits that inspite of the receipt of the notice, the respondent failed to treat the impugned letter and directions

issued, as quashed and also failed to issue directions to all branches of the Inssurtance Company to allot work to the petitioner. The petitioner

further submits that respondent being a high official does not care to obey the orders of this Court and is bent upon to defy the order of this Court.

The petitioner has prayed that since the respondent has failed to obey the directions of this Court, and has willfully disobeyed the orders of the

Court, he should be punished for contempt of the Court.

The respondent has appeared through his counsel. It appears that after this Contempt petition was moved, the Court ordered on 24.12.1993for

filing of statement of facts by the respondent. The respondent filed objections on 24.1.1994. The Court on 19.12.1994 observed that although the

objections have been filed, but the respondent was not asked to file objections. He was only asked to file a statement of facts. On this date, the

Court came to the conclusion that prima facie it appears that the respondent has not completed the enquiry within the stipulated period and a notice

of show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him, was ordered to be issued. It appears that after passing of this order

another set of objections was filed by the respondent.

In his objections dated:24.1.1994, the respondent has submitted that the allotment of work to the petitioner was suspended after having been

satisfied that a prima facie case of misusing the documents, photographs and making forged claims and assessing the losses on the higher side had

been established. It has been submitted that the stoppage of alloment of work to the petitioner was a temporary measure and an enquiry was

contemplated against the petitioner. He has submitted that there has been no default in complying with the interim orders passed by this Court in

Writ Petition No.549/1993. He has further submitted that it is incorrect to suggest that no enquiry was held or completed in terms of the order of

this Court dated:22.7.1993. He submits that after conducting an enquiry, the findings thereof were conveyed to the petitioner under Regional

Manager's letter dated: 14.10.1993, by which he was asked to submit his reply within three days. The petitioner was further informed that if he

fails to submit his reply within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that he had nothing to .say in the matter. It has further been contended that

since the enquiry has been completed within the time prescribed by the court, the orders of suspension still hold the ground, It has been vehemently

denied that any order of this Court has been violated.

In the second set of objections, the respondent has submitted that after completion of the enquiry, a final order was passed on 18.1.1994.,

whereby the earlier decision taken against the petitioner was confirmed. This order was passed by the Regional Manager on 18.1.1.994. He has

further submitted that after passing of the order by this Court on 22.7.1993, the Regional Manager deputed Mr.R.R. Shasker, the then Assistant

Manager to enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner while doing the job of Surveyor in connection with the claims pertaining to the National

Insurance Company. On 13.10 1993, the said Investigating Officer submitted his detailed investigation report to the Regional Manager. A copy

thereof was sent by the Regional Manager to the petitioner on his registered address available with the company. The envelope which was sent

through registered post to the petitioner, was received back with me following note of the postal Department:

The postal authorities have observed that on the given dates from 18.10.1993 to 25.10.1993, the office of the addressed i.e. the petitioner was

found closed and therefore, the envelope as it is, is returned to the insurance company with the report dated:25.10.1993

Copy of the postal receipt, copy of the note of postal authorities and the envelope have been annexed with the objections. By this investigation

report, which was not received by the petitioner, he was asked to submit his reply within three days, failing which, it had to be presumed that

petitioner had nothing to say in the matter. The findings were communicated to the petitioner on the address given by him to the respondent

company, but it was not deliberately received by him. The case of the respondent is that he completed the enquiry within the sipulated period of

time, but did not pass final orders within the stipulated period of time, and final order was passed on 18.1.1994. They have further contended mat

enquiry meant only completion of the procedure, but not passing of the final order. The respondent submits that he sincerely believed that the Court

wanted him to complete the enquiry within a period of three months, and it was not his intention to disobey the orders of the Court. According to

the respondent, the Regional Manager was advised by his counsel namely, Mr.T.S.Thakur Senior Advocate at present Hon'ble Judge of the

Kamatka High Court that the company was bound only to complete the enquiry within the prescribed time granted by the Hon'ble Court, and not

to pass any final order. It has further been submitted that the said Advocate also advised them that after reply was not received by the respondent

to the letter addressed to petitioner on 14.10.1993, to extend time so that there was no grievanceto the petitioner to the effect that he was not

heard in the matter, before passing of the final order. A copy of the opinion given by Mr.T S.Thakur has also been annexed with objections.

The petitioner has filed his rejoinder to the objections in which he has said that enquiry would mean its completion by passing a final order. The

petitioner has laid stress on a letter of Mr.Thakur.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court

reported in AIR 1992 S.C. page 407. My attention has also been drawn to a case reported in AIR 1991 S.C. page 281. The 1991 judgment lays

down that before proceeding in the contempt matter, the Court should be able to conclude beyond all doubt that the alleged contemner had acted

wilfully to disobey the orders of the Court. The judgment of 1992 lays down ""From the material on record and after hearing learned counsel for the

parties, we are riot satisfied that it is a case in which it can conclusively be said that the respondents have wilfully or deliberately or contemptuously

flouted or disobeyed the orders of this court dated 7.2.1991. It appears to us to be a case of misinterpretation of the executive directions and

order of this court dated 7.2.1991 and, is therefore, not a fit case in which contempt proceedings need to proceed any further. We, accordingly,

drop the contempt proceedings and discharge the rule issued against the respondents.

These observations of the Apex court clearly lay down that if there is a bonafide misinterpretation of the order of the Court, the contempt

would not lie. For proceeding in contempt, the court must be sure that the respondent has acted wilfully, deliberately and contentiously in

disobeying the orders of the Court.

As has been narrated above, the respondent has acted on the advice of one of the respected Senior Advocates of this court Mr.T.S. Thakur,

as he then was, I do not think that it is a fit case in which contempt would lie. However, I am of the opinion that when the court passed the orders

on 22.7.1993, it directed the completion of enquiry within three months, which meant that the enquiry had to be completed in ail respects, and a

final order was to be passed within a period of three months. Although the respondents have completed enquiry within a period of three months as

stipulated by the order of this court, the final order was not passed within such period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of this court

dated:22.7.1993 has became operative after the expiry of three months thereafter, and at present, there is no order of suspension in force against

the petitioner. So, the socalled order passed on 18.1.1994 is decidedly without jurisdiction. Since the said order has been passed by

misinterpreting the judgment of this court, and by acting on the advice of senior Advocate, I would give a chance to respondents to proceed a fresh

in the matter.

In these circumstances, I direct that the enquiry shall be conducted a fresh by the respondents against the petitioner within a period of two

months. The petitioner should himself approach the Divisional Manager DOI National Insurance Company, Shalamar Road, Jammu within one

weak from today He shall continue to attend his office atleast once a week for participating in the enquiry. The completion of enquiry would mean

passing of final orders as well. Till the enquiry is completed and final order is passed, the order by which it was decided that the services of the

petitioner shall not be utilized, shall not be acted upon.

With these observations, the contempt petition is disposed of.