Madras High Court Suspends One-Month Imprisonment Imposed On IAS Officer In Contempt Case
The Madras High Court has suspended the sentence of one-month imprisonment imposed on IAS officer Anshul Mishra for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan suspended the sentence imposed by the judge. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the IAS officer seeking to set aside the order of the single judge.
On April 28, Justice P Velmurugan had found the IAS officer guilty of the offence under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him. The judge had asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary and directed the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary. The sentence was suspended, allowing the officer to go for appeal.
Background
The contempt petition was filed by two elderly siblings against the officer for not implementing an earlier order of the court wherein the court had directed the officer to consider their representation and suitable orders after affording a reasonable opportunity by way of personal hearing to be attended by their representative or advocate. The case involved reconveyance of the property belonging to the petitioners which was acquired for constructing a road but was not utilized.
The petitioners had informed the court that the order was passed by the writ court in November 2023, which was duly communicated and a reminder was also sent in May, 2024. Even after sending a legal notice in June 2024, which was duly acknowledged, the order wasn’t complied with, prompting them to approach the court.
The respondent officer however denied any willful disobedience of the court order and said that the delay was due to some administrative changes in the Department.
The court found the reasons unsatisfactory and held that the disobedience was willful and wanton. The court noted that despite a representation from the petitioners after the court order, the respondent had neither acted on it within a reasonable time nor provided any response.
He court also said that being a public servant, the respondent officer was entrusted with a serious responsibility and once this public duty was cast, he was bound to discharge his duty without fail. In the present case, the court noted that even after issuance of statutory notice, there was no sincere effort to rectify the lapse.
Case Title: Anshul Mishra IAS v R Lalithambal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Case No: Cont A 27 of 2025
