Officer Facing Contempt Action Refuses To Accept Demotion As Punishment; Supreme Court Warns Of Jail

The Supreme Court today expressed its displeasure at a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, when he said that he would not accept demotion as a punishment for contempt of court.A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with a plea filed by the petitioner/Deputy Collector against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 2 months' simple imprisonment. Yesterday, Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka (for the petitioner) was asked to obtain instructions if the Deputy Collector was willing to give an undertaking that he would continue working at the post of Deputy Tahsildar (that is, the post at which he was initially appointed). Today, the senior counsel conveyed the petitioner's unwillingness to accept what was falling from the Court.Displeased, the bench noted that it was being lenient to the petitioner, keeping in view his children and his future. But his adamancy spoke volumes about what attitude he must have had towards the High Court's orders. "We wanted to save his career. But if he does not want, we can't help. This shows what attitude he must have had about orders of HC", commented Justice Gavai.When the petitioner, who was present in person, prayed for mercy, the judge remarked,"Jab 80 police wale leke logo ke ghar giraye tab Bhagwan ki yaad nahi aayi apko?" (When you took 80 policemen to demolish people's houses, then you did not remember God?)Notably, the Court even proposed that the petitioner be demoted to the post of Tahsildar (instead of Deputy Tahsildar). However, the petitioner was not agreeable and drew the Court's ire for expecting to go scot-free."Thinking of your children, we were trying to save you from going to jail. But if you want to go, go. Stay there for 2 months. Your job will also go. This can't go unpunished. After warning of HC, if someone indulges in this thing...Howsoever high one may be, [he] is not above the law. We can't permit orders of our HCs to be treated in such a contemptuous manner. We won't let go of this without punishment."Even today, the Court gave 10 minutes time to Bharuka to try and convince the petitioner. "If he is adamant, we can't help. We don't want to...His attitude is very clear", said Justice Gavai. When the petitioner remained adamant, the Court showed inclination to dismiss the petition."We will pass such stringent observations against him that no employer will dare to employ him. He is a director of protocol. He must be thinking he is close to the government...We are never such harsh, but here we can read between the lines. His adamancy speaks volumes. If he remains adamant, we will not only dismiss, we will also ensure that he is not re-instated. We could not have been more lenient", warned Justice Gavai.Ultimately, at Bharuka's request, the matter was adjourned to Friday. Before parting with the matter, Justice Gavai said, "He has thrown people out of their houses. We don't want to be like him".On an earlier occasion, the top Court had come down heavily on the petitioner but ultimately, taking a lenient view, issued notice. At the same time however, it was orally indicated that he would have to do prison-time, pay heavy costs to all the persons who suffered due to his actions, and suffer demotion. In response to a plea for leniency, as the petitioner has 2 minor children, Justice Gavai had noted that the slum-dwellers whom he dis-housed also had children.BackgroundFour persons, claiming to be in possession of certain land in Guntur District, filed representations before the Revenue authorities, for grant of house site pattas for the lands, which were said to be in their occupation. Thereafter, they approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the revenue authorities were seeking to evict them from the plots in their occupation without considering their representations.By order dated 13.09.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application for grant of house site subject to their eligibility and to communicate the decision taken within a period of two months. It was further directed that none of the respondents, including the Tahsildar shall disturb the possession of the petitioners, if they are in possession of the lands.Another set of people approached the High Court contending that they were in possession of lands in the Guntur district since 2 years and were sought to be removed without considering their representations for grant of house sites. In their case, by order dated 11.12.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the petition, observing that the Tahsildar could not take law into his own hands by indulging in forcible removal of the structures. The people represented by the petitioner-union were restrained from raising any structures till their...

Officer Facing Contempt Action Refuses To Accept Demotion As Punishment; Supreme Court Warns Of Jail

Debby Jain

Tags