<p>“No charge(s) had ever been framed by the Tribunal as mandatorily required under the rules. Thus, question of furnishing the copy of the same to the appellant did not arise. <br /><br />Therefore, the contempt proceedings had not been concluded in conformity with the aforesaid rules at all,” a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said, <br />“In the instant case, admittedly, the procedure prescribed hereinabove under the 1992 Rules has not been followed. A criminal contempt case has neither been registered nor numbered separately,’’ said the judgement written by Justice Chauhan.<br /><br /> In an order on December 19, 2002, CAT had held that Sujatha was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal and imposed the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs 2,000.</p>.<p>Sujatha had challenged the order before the apex court saying that due procedure was not followed by the Tribunal.<br /><br />In January 24, 2001, Karnataka had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Sujatha on the allegation that she had committed certain irregularities in the allotment of wheat under the State-funded wheat-based nutrition programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called M/s Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The FIR of the case was filed on March 31, 1997.</p>
<p>“No charge(s) had ever been framed by the Tribunal as mandatorily required under the rules. Thus, question of furnishing the copy of the same to the appellant did not arise. <br /><br />Therefore, the contempt proceedings had not been concluded in conformity with the aforesaid rules at all,” a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said, <br />“In the instant case, admittedly, the procedure prescribed hereinabove under the 1992 Rules has not been followed. A criminal contempt case has neither been registered nor numbered separately,’’ said the judgement written by Justice Chauhan.<br /><br /> In an order on December 19, 2002, CAT had held that Sujatha was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal and imposed the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs 2,000.</p>.<p>Sujatha had challenged the order before the apex court saying that due procedure was not followed by the Tribunal.<br /><br />In January 24, 2001, Karnataka had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Sujatha on the allegation that she had committed certain irregularities in the allotment of wheat under the State-funded wheat-based nutrition programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called M/s Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The FIR of the case was filed on March 31, 1997.</p>
