CAT Cannot Dispense With Trial Even If Contempt Was Committed In The Face Of It, When Alleged Contemnor Denies Charges : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no power to dispense with trial before punishing for contempt committed in the face of it, if the alleged contemnor is denying the charges. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy passed the order in a plea filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, that had found him guilty of contempt of court under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for his intemperate behaviour. The Bench perused Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act and also Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Rules thereunder, which provide jurisdiction to the Tribunals to initiate contempt proceedings. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy Headnotes: Central Administrative Tribunal - Punishment for contempt imposed on Advocate for alleged intemperate behaviour in court- SC sets aside CAT order as no trial was conducted - We would think that in the facts of this case, denial of a right of trial which is contemplated also under Section 14 of the Act as also Rule 15 of the Rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice - Para 26 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 14 - Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court - contemplates opportunity is provided to contemnor to make his defence - evidence to be taken as may be necessary Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985- Section 17 - Power of CAT to punish for contempt - Central Administrative Tribunal Rules 13 & 15 - CAT cannot punish for contempt committed in the face of it without trial when the alleged contemnor denies charges - Procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act to be followed- CAT has no power of the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India - Distinguished Leila David v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.