Public Service Is Trust, Not A Privilege: Madras HC Jails IAS Officer For Contempt, Orders ₹25K From Salary As Compensation
IAS officer failed to follow a 2023 court order on land reconveyance.
Justice P. Velmurugan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court sentenced an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer to one month of simple imprisonment for civil contempt of court, citing his failure to comply with a previous court order in a land reconveyance matter. However, the Court suspended the sentence temporarily to allow him an opportunity to file an appeal.
The petition was filed by two elderly siblings, who approached the High Court after the IAS officer failed to comply with an earlier court directive issued in November 2023. That order had required the officer to consider the petitioners’ representation and pass appropriate orders after providing a personal hearing, either in person or through their legal representative. This matter pertained to the reconveyance of land originally acquired for a road project but which ultimately remained unused.
Despite the High Court’s clear direction, the petitioners stated that their representation was ignored, prompting them to send a reminder in May 2024, followed by a legal notice in June 2024, which was acknowledged by the officer. However, no action was taken. Frustrated by this continued inaction, the petitioners filed the contempt petition.
A Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan additionally directed him to pay Rs. 25,000 in compensation to the petitioners an elderly brother and sister directly from his personal salary. The government was instructed to recover this amount from his salary and ensure it reached the petitioners.
The Court added, “The confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system rests upon the assurance that the orders of the Courts will be implemented promptly and effectively. Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people. Public servants are answerable not only to their immediate administrative superiors but ultimately to the law and the Constitution.”
K.V.Subramanian Associates appeared for the petitioners and P.Veena Suresh appeared for the Respondent.
Referring to a pattern, the Court noted, “This Court notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident. In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach the constitutional Courts for directions. Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights. Such repeated and consistent defiance by public officials is not only wrong but also challenges the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold.”
The officer claimed that there was no willful disobedience, attributing the delay to administrative changes within the department. The Court, however, found these justifications unconvincing, stating that the officer had ample time and opportunity to comply with the order. His failure to act, despite being served statutory notices and having received the court’s directive months earlier, was deemed both willful and deliberate.
The Court concluded that his conduct constituted “willful disobedience” under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a court. Stressing the seriousness of such misconduct by public officials, the Court held him guilty of civil contempt and issued the sentence and compensation order accordingly.
Cause Title: R.Lalithambai & Anr. v. Thiru.Anshul Mishra, IAS
