Jammu, Nov 23: In ROBOW No. 1/2023 Robkar Vs Jagdish Raj Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority after hearing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ordered as:-
BRIEF FACTS: 1. The instant Robkar has been framed against the respondent Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority on account of the false statement having been made by him in the open Court on 11.05.2023 regarding the torn-off of the original plan directed to be produced which, upon examination of the original plan, was found to be intact and not teared.
2. This Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 directed the Registry of this Court to frame Rule against the respondent -Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority to explain as to why he be not punished for having deliberately and intentionally made false and wrong statement at Bar before this Court.
3. In compliance to the direction passed by this Court for framing of the Rule against the respondent (Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority), Registrar Judicial, Jammu Wing of this Court has framed Robkar against the said respondent and he was directed to show cause as to why he be not punished for making a wrong statement before the Court.
4. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the Registrar Judicial of this Court, the respondent-Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority has tendered an unconditional aplogy praying therein for dropping of the proceeding/discharging him.
5. In the apology tendered by the respondent he has stated that he is serving in the department for the last 24 years in various capacities and has an unblemished career without any criminal case or complaint and never has given any occasion to any court to frame contempt rule or charge against him.
This is for the first time that such a contempt notice has been issued to him.
6. The respondent has also stated that he has appeared in the Court for the first time in his official career, therefore, was nervous and anxious during the hearing and thus he could not immediately and correctly respond to the Court‟s query whether the map was torn off, worn off or was not traceable.
7. It is also stated that the submission of the respondent that the map was “torn or teared off” was based on the factual report submitted to him by his office staff who were the custodian of record. As the matter of fact, the office staff also regrets the same but the devil lies in the translation error and lack of high knowledge of English language which is not the mother tongue of the respondent and his office staff.
8. It is further stated that had there been any malafide intention to mislead the Court, the map in the same condition would not have been produced before the VC JDA or the Court in its original form and some part could have been actually mutilated or torn, but the respondent taking the Court‟s order as a divine command, at the risk of facing this contempt ensured the original in „as is form‟ before the Court.
It is further submitted that the respondent and his staff are absolutely innocent and naïve and could never dare to do any such act and therefore, produced the map in the same condition before the Court with no hanky panky or tinkering but at the same time respondent 4 OWP No. 606/2016 admits his fault, that the choice of the words in English like „torn off‟ was wrong for which the respondent deeply regrets.
And after hearing all aspects the court added that "Heard learned counsel for the respondent at length and perused the apology tendered by the respondent-Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority".
16. Since, the respondent-Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority have tendered an absolute and unconditional apology through Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Advocate and the language used in the said apology reflects regretful acknowledgment.
The apology which has been tendered by the aforesaid person seems to be tendered with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance and not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment. The same is accepted by this Court being bonafide.
17. Undoubtedly, the apology cannot be a defense of justification or an appropriate punishment for an act which tantamounts to contempt of court. The apology can be accepted in a case where the conduct for such an apology given is such that it cannot be ignored without compromising the dignity of the court.
18. Time and again, courts have held that apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow; there is no remorse, no regret, no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigor of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as a “paper apology”. So, an apology should not be “paper apology” and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen; for it is one thing to 'say' sorry, it is another to 'feel' sorry.
19. The power to punish for contempt is a rare species of judicial power which by the very nature calls for exercise with great care and caution. Such power ought to be exercised only where “silence is no longer an option.”
Being an officer of the Jammu Development Authority, it was his duty not to make a false statement before the Court regarding the tearing-off of the original plan, which upon examination, was found to be intact and not teared-off.
20. Since the unconditional apology has been tendered by Jagdish Raj, Chief Town Planner, Jammu Development Authority through Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Advocate seems to be bonafide and as he has shown remorse and repentance of his acts, the same is accepted by this Court and the proceedings which have been initiated by this Court in the present petition, as such, are closed for the reasons stated hereinabove.
|