Contempt proceedings against IAS officer

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 2

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against IAS officer Sibin C, the then Special Secretary of the Punjab Government’s Rural Development and Panchayat Department, after holding that he apparently “overreached the process of the court” in a service matter.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma also directed the issuance of notice to the Punjab Chief Secretary after asking the registry to prepare formal contempt proceedings against him as well “However, it is made clear that if the compliance is made and the orders are corrected, the officers need not to be present in the court,” the Bench said.

Taking up the petition filed by BK Dhir through counsel Harpal Singh Sirohi and Abhiraj Singh Baweja, the Bench observed the special secretary, who passed the order on April 13, 2018, apparently overreached the process of the court and as he knowingly stated that payment was not due to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that joint director’s pay-scale was higher than deputy director. It was much higher in case of an officiating additional director.

The petitioner was to be “fixed in the pay scale of joint director from May 1, 1993, and, thereafter, on the pay scale of additional director on July 1, 1993”. But the officer denied the benefit granted by the court and upheld by the Supreme Court.

“We, therefore, initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the officer concerned under Article 215 of the Constitution and direct Sibin C to file his reply. The Registry is directed to prepare formal contempt proceedings against Sibin C, the then Special Secretary, Punjab Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab,” the Bench added. The case will now come up in July last week for further hearing.

The issue

The petitioner was to be “fixed in the pay scale of joint director from May 1, 1993, and, thereafter, on the pay scale of additional director on July 1, 1993”. But the officer denied the benefit granted by the court and upheld by the Supreme Court.