IRS Officer held guilty of contempt of Court as he was disobeying orders of Court; HC upheld restraint order

Sections 15 and 19, of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Restraint order (Wilful defiance) - Appellant an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer working as Commissioner(Appeals) was suspended on ground of indiscipline for having made unscrupulous remarks against respondents , who were officers of Indian Revenue Service - Appellant approached Central Administrative Tribunal to quash suspension order which petition was allowed by Tribunal and suspension order was quashed - Aggrieved, respondents preferred a writ petition before instant Court - By an order, Division Bench expunged disparaging pleadings inter se appellant and respondents - Thereafter, appellant sent a letter to Commissioner with copies to Chairman, CBDT of Income-tax Department as well as to Commissioner (Vigilance) in which, amongst other allegations, there were also some obnoxious and denigrating statements made against respondents - Single Judge passed an interim order whereby appellant was restrained from writing any letter containing allegations similar to those contained in previous letter and further directions were also issued to department to ensure that no such communications were distributed within organization - Appellant, despite interim order, sent an offending communication to Chairman, CBDT which also contained scurrilous statements against respondents - Respondents thus filed a contempt petition against appellants - Thereafter, appellant tendered an unqualified apology stating that letter written by him had been written in a state of emotional turmoil and submitted that he would neither in present nor in future write any letter or any other form of communication in terms of interim order - Court recorded statement and unconditional apology of appellant and disposed of contempt petition by an order - However, appellant once again sent a letter containing language and allegations similar to ones contained in previous letters - This letter was followed by two similar letters addressed to Commissioner which were also in a similar vein - Thus, respondents filed another contempt petition bringing said letters to notice of Single Judge - Single Judge by an order injuncted appellant from addressing any communication to any third person in which there was a reference of respondents in manner as contained in letters - Single Judge found appellant guilty of wilfully and consciously violating Court orders passed in writ petition and contempt cases and passed impugned order imposing punishment and fine on appellant for violating/disobeying restraint order - Whether appellant had repeatedly disobeyed orders of court and was thus guilty of contempt of Court - Held, yes - Whether since there was no remorse or regret on part of appellant with respect to his contumacious conduct and apology tendered by him before Single Judge was neither sincere nor an act of penitence or regret and above all not bona fide , order of Single Judge was to be upheld - Held, yes [Paras 36, 42 and 46] [In favour of respondents]

Refer:[2014] 44 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.K. Srivastava
v.
Ms. X