Hd Chakraborty vs Uk Bansal Dg Bsf & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5864 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 28th September, 2012
+         CONT CAS (C) 6/2012

          HD CHAKRABORTY                            ...... Appellant
                      Through:           Ms. Kanika Bhutani, Adv.

                      versus

          UK BANSAL DG BSF & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
                                 Mr. Saqib, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Ravjyot Singh, Adv. for UOI.
          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                  JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been preferred by the Petitioner on the ground that the order dated 21.03.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.44904/1994 has not been complied with by the Respondents.

2. It is stated that although Respondents were being represented, yet a copy of the judgment was also forwarded to the Director General, BSF by the Petitioner through a letter dated 25.04.2011 requesting for immediate action in terms of the directions passed by this Court followed by a reminder dated 27.12.2011. Thus, it is urged that non compliance of the order dated 21.03.2011 on the part of Respondents No.1 and 2 is deliberate and contumacious and they are liable to be punished for contempt.

3. The Petitioner was imposed with a sentence of severe reprimand and reduction of seniority by 3 years i.e. by directing that the Petitioner's rank and precedent of promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 14.09.1990 although he had been actually promoted as such on 14.09.1987.

4. By the judgment dated 21.03.2011 in W.P. (C) No.4904/1994 the said order was set aside and the Petitioner was absolved of the charges framed against him. Certain directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Para 38 of the judgment which are extracted hereunder:-

"38. Noting that as a result of the penalty imposed, petitioner could not earn promotions, we direct Review DPC to be held and consider petitioner's candidature for promotion by considering the ACRs of the petitioner as of the date when DPC met and in which persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, if held entitled to be promoted, except back-wages. Noting that the petitioner has since retired, we clarify that his pension would be fixed accordingly with reference to the higher post and would be paid as per scale of pay applicable with effect from the date pension became payable."

5. A status report dated 19.03.2012 has been filed by the Respondents whereby it is stated that in compliance of the order of this Court a DPC was conducted and the Petitioner was considered for promotion, but was not found fit as per its Service Rules. Para 6 of the Status Report is extracted hereunder:-

6. That, it is most respectfully submitted that in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court, a review DPC was conducted on 19.12.2011 with reference to DPC held on 22nd Nov. 1995 and the subsequent DPCs. It is most respectfully submitted that the required bench mark for promotion from Deputy Commandant to Second-in-Command for all the relevant DPCs is "Very Good", in terms of the Selection-cum-Merit method. It is submitted that the

petitioner could not secure the requisite bench mark in all the DPCs from 22nd Nov. 1995 to 09th Feb. 2001, hence he was not recommended for empanelment and promotion to the next higher rank by the aforesaid DPC."

6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was never informed that he had ever been considered in any DPC for the promotion or that he was not found suitable.

7. Copy of the order dated 23.03.2012 has been supplied to the learned counsel for the Petitioner during the hearing of the Petition. Since a Review DPC was constituted albeit after some delay and the Petitioner was considered and found unsuitable for promotion to the next higher rank, it cannot be said that the Respondents contumaciously disobeyed the order dated 21.03.2011. The Respondents have explained that delay in implementation of the order dated 21.03.2011 was on account of involvement of various offices and tracing of personal records of the Petitioner.

8. In this view of the matter, no case of contempt is made out against the Respondents.

9. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

10. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 vk