Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Shishir Dutt on 18 October, 2019
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 18th October, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 11076/2019
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. V.S. R. Krishna, Advocate
versus
SHISHIR DUTT ..... Respondent
Through Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Mr. Ajit Kumar
Ekka, Mr. Murari Lal, Mr. R.S.M.
Kalky and Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CAV.PET.1043/2019
1. Learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the caveator.
2. The caveat petition is accordingly disposed of.
CM. APPL 45656/2019 (Exemption)
3. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
4. The application stands disposed of.
CM. APPL 45657/2019 (Addl documents)
5. The additional documents be taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
6. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11076/2019
7. The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 24.09.2019
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') in a
contempt petition wherein the respondent herein (petitioner before the
Tribunal) has alleged willful disobedience of the order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No.3030/2017.
8. Mr. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions as contained
in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners explains that
the OA that was filed by the respondent challenged the Minutes of DPC
conducted on 04.04.2017 for the purpose of selecting candidates for
posting as a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) in the Railway. This
OA was allowed and a writ petition challenging the order of the
Tribunal was also dismissed; whereupon the order passed by the
Tribunal attained finality. He submits that the Tribunal had only issued
directions to the petitioners herein to convene a Review DPC and treat
the APAR for first part of the year 2014-15 as non-est. He submits that
admittedly, before the contempt petition came-up for hearing, a Review
DPC had already been convened in which however, the respondent was
not considered fit to be posted as DRM.
9. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has taken note of certain
paragraphs of the Review Selection Committee and made the following
observations:
"It is not in doubt that non-selection of applicant on the
earlier occasion was on the basis of the APAR of the
applicant, for the first part of the year 2014-2015. That is
evident from the following paragraph of the minutes of the
Review Selection Committee:-
"Shri Shishir Dutt, SAG/IRSME/Southern Railway
(previously working in ICF) was considered for short
listing for posting as DRM in the short listing year
2016-17 1st July 2016 to 30 June 2017) by the
Selection Committee (CRB, Secretary, DoP&T, MS &
MRS) in their meeting held on 03.02.2017. The
Committee noted that the grading in his APAR for the
year 2014-15 (Part-1) had originally been given as
'Good' and 'Not Fit for DRM'. On his representation,
the APAR was upgraded as 'Very Good'. However, the
Committee assessed his APAR for the year 2014-15
(Part-1) as 'Good' keeping in view that none of the
attributes were upgraded by the Competent Authority.
The Committee did not recommend inclusion of Shri
Dutt in DRM's short list for the year 2016-17
(Annexure-1)."
Once that was directed to be omitted from consideration,
hardly there should be any reason for not selecting the
applicant. After referring to various developments that have
taken place before this Tribunal and Hon'ble Delhi High
Court, the review Selection Committee proceeded as though
it was undertaking his assessment for the first time and not
as a Review Committee. It has chosen to assess the
Management Qualities of the applicant, that too, by
referring to the APAR for 2010-2011 (part 1 andpart-2). By
observing that various facets, were at the level of 'Good' and
'Average', they refused to recommend the name of the
applicant for posting as DRM.
We are prima facie of the view that the Selection
Committee which met on 27.08.2019 comprising of
Respondents 1,3,5 and one Mr. Manoj Pande in place of Sh.
S. N. Agrawal, who since retired, have clearly violated the
directions issued by this Tribunal as reiterated by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court. We, therefore, direct them to
explain within three weeks, as to why appropriate orders be
not passed in this behalf. We, however, leave it open to
them to reconsider the issue, strictly in accordance with the
orders passed in the OA as affirmed in the aforesaid Writ
Petition.
Post on 18.10.2019. Order by Dasti."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal had only
issued a direction to convene the Review DPC. There was no direction
for the respondent herein to be appointed as DRM; and thus, it was
open for the Review DPC to consider the material on record, except
APAR of the year 2014-15, which was declared non-est and take a
decision as considered proper by the Review DPC.
11. The sum and substance of the arguments advance by learned counsel
for the petitioners is that even if the respondent herein is aggrieved by
the decision of the Review DPC, a contempt petition could not have
been filed since there was no disobedience of any order of the Tribunal.
12. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent has entered appearance.
He submits that there is no infirmity in order dated 24.09.2019 which
would require interference by this Court.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. We are of the considered view that the present writ petition is pre-
mature. The Tribunal has only directed the petitioners to explain as to
why appropriate orders should not be passed in the contempt
proceedings. We have no hesitation in saying that in case the
explanation that has been rendered before us is rendered before the
Tribunal, the Tribunal would consider the same in accordance with law
and thereafter pass appropriate orders.
15. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
16. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted to the petitioners to approach this
Court if so advised after the Tribunal passes orders.
CM.APPL 45655/2019(stay)
17. The application also stands disposed of in view of the order passed in
the writ petition.
18. A copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties under the signature of
Court Master.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
OCTOBER 18, 2019
pst
