The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday directed that the matter concerning alleged non-compliance with its orders in the dearness allowance (DA) case be placed before the Bench handling contempt matters under the court’s roster. The case includes allegations of prima facie criminal contempt against Punjab Chief Secretary.
The development came after the state government’s counsel told the court that the Chief Secretary was willing to offer an unconditional apology. However, the Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said the court was duty-bound to ensure that its authority was not undermined.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the Punjab government, submitted that the Chief Secretary had no deliberate intention to make a false statement regarding the removal of defects in the state’s special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. He added that the officer was willing to tender an unconditional apology if the court considered it appropriate.
However, the applicants opposed the suggestion of an apology and argued that the state’s conduct amounted to contempt of court. Senior advocates Sanjay Kaushal and Chetan Mittal, representing the applicants, also alleged that there had been an attempt to scandalise the court’s proceedings.
The High Court recalled that it had decided the letters patent appeal (LPA) on August 3 and directed the Chief Secretary to file a compliance affidavit by August 31. The affidavit was not filed within the directed period, following which applications seeking contempt proceedings were moved.
The court also noted that the Punjab government had informed it that a special leave petition had been filed before the Supreme Court on September 1. The High Court repeatedly adjourned the matter to give the state a reasonable opportunity to have its appeal heard by the Supreme Court.
However, a report obtained from the Supreme Court Registry showed that the appeals filed by the Punjab government and the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) continued to remain defective.
This was significant because the Chief Secretary had earlier filed an affidavit stating that the defects had been removed. The applicants disputed this claim.
In its observations on Friday, the High Court said that even suggestions questioning the propriety or conduct of judicial proceedings had to be dealt with carefully. It then directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench according to the roster to deal with contempt-related issues.
The direction does not amount to a final finding of guilt against the Chief Secretary. The matter will now be placed before the Bench having jurisdiction to deal with it.
The case relates to the implementation of orders in the dearness allowance dispute. The latest proceedings concern alleged non-compliance with the High Court’s directions and the statement made about the status of defects in the appeals filed before the Supreme Court.