Patna High Court

Amrit Mohan Prasad, Director General ... vs Kumar Chandra Vikram on 2 July, 2025

Author: Partha Sarthy

Bench: Partha Sarthy

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Letters Patent Appeal No.669 of 2025
                                    In
             Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3555 of 2024
     ===============================================
1.   Amrit Mohan Prasad, Director General Force Headquarter,
     Sashastra Seema Bal, East Block-V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-
     110066.
2.   Pramod Devrani, Commandant (Pers-1), Government of India,
     Ministry of Home Affairs, Director General, Sahastra Seema Bal,
     East Block V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.


                                                     ... ... Appellant/s
                                   Versus
1.   Kumar Chandra Vikram S/o Late Kumar Kamlesh Maldahiyar,
     Resident of Flat No.-401, Block- B, Shanti Enclave, Sharma
     Path, Rukanpura, P.S.- Rukanpura, District- Patna.
2.   The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
     New Delhi.


                                                   ... ... Respondent/s
     ===============================================
     Appearance :
     For the Union of India    :     Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
     For the Appellant         :     Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.1, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s      :     Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
     ======================================================
 Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025
                                            2/11




       CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                   and
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
       ORAL JUDGMENT
       (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)


         Date : 02-07-2025

                      We have heard Dr. K.N. Singh, learned ASG for

         the appellant/Union of India and Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned

         Advocate for the respondent.

                      2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

         20.06.2025

, whereby the Director General, Sashastra Seema

Bal, New Delhi has been directed to be personally present

in Court.

3. The initial objection of Mr. Rupak Kumar,

learned Advocate for the respondent is that this appeal is not

maintainable.

4. The objection has been noted only to be

rejected.

5. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and

others v. Chunilal Nanda and others; (2006) 5 SCC 399,

the issue has been decided conclusively holding that Interim

orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

case falling in special categories viz. (i) orders which finally

decide a question or issue in controversy in main case; (ii)

orders which finally decide an issue which materially and

directly affects the final decision in the main case; (iii)

orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question

which is not the subject matter of the main case; (iv) routine

orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case

till its culmination in the final judgment; and (v) orders

which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to

a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and

obligations of the parties, are appealable. [emphasis

provided]

6. The logic behind this proposition is that the

term 'judgment' occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in

Section 2 (9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule

1 of the CPC, but also other orders which, though may not

finally and conclusively determine the rights of the parties

with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have

finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect

the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

7. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd.

(supra), it has categorically been held that order falling

under the category of such order which may cause some

inconvenience or some prejudice to a party is appealable

under the Letters Patent. [Also refer to Shah Babulal

Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr.; (1981) 4 SCC 8

and Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and Ors. vs. Annabai

Devram Kini and Ors.; (2003) 10 SCC 691]

8. That apart, the order impugned in the present

appeal being beyond interlocutory order, it would be more

apposite to refer to the order of summoning as an

intermediate order, which decided the matter of moment.

Therefore, it is appealable.

9. A brief detour in the facts of the case would also

be important.

10. The respondent/Kumar Chandra Vikram, an

officer of the SSB, after a departmental proceeding, was put

to censure. This punishment did not find favour with the

learned Single Judge, who for good reasons set it aside and

directed for grant of all consequential benefits to the officer

concerned.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

11. The judgment passed by the learned Single

Judge, setting aside the order of punishment of censure and

granting consequential benefits to the concerned officer was

fully complied with. The concerned officer was promoted to

the post of DIG after following the procedure and was

placed above his juniors who were earlier given promotion.

12. Thereafter, a DPC was convened for

recommending the name of officers including the

respondent for promotion to the post of IG. After all the

clearances, the matter was pending consideration before the

ACC, the highest administrative body under the PMO.

13. These facts have been noted by the learned

Single Judge in his order dated 26.03.2025 passed in MJC

No. 3555 of 2024, wherein he records as follows:-

"2. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Union of India stating therein that the S.S.B. has complied the order of this Court. As follow up after the Review DPC for vacancy year 2024 and regular DPC for vacancy year 2025 requisite proposal for obtaining approval of ACC in respect of DIG's recommendation for empanelment for promotion to rank of IG Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

was sent for respective years which included the name of the petitioner on 31.12.2024 and after recommending the name of the petitioner, now the matter is pending for approval of the Appointment Cabinet Committee under the PMO. It also appears from the Annexure-F of the supplementary show cause that the S.S.B. has already considered the promotion of the petitioner on 31.12.2024 itself and the same is sent for the approval and after the approval from the Appointment Cabinet Committee, the notification will be issued by the opposite party."

14. However, on the next date i.e. 20.06.2025, on

being told that the judgment of the High Court has not been

fully complied with, the Court directed for the appearance

of the Director General, SSB with a caveat that such

summon would be effective only if the order has not been

complied with.

15. A true interpretation of the order would be that

there would be no requirement of the Director General, SSB

to appear, as the judgment in question has already been Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

complied at the level of the Director General. A restrictive

view would be that unless the respondent gets promoted to

the post of IG, the part of the judgment which granted

consequential benefits to the officer, would not be deemed

to have been complied with.

16. Taking this restrictive view into account, the

learned ASG has chosen to file this appeal, challenging the

correctness of the order of summoning of the Director

General of SSB.

17. In the aforenoted background facts, we also

deem it necessary to refer to the Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) on Personal Appearance of Government

Officials in Court Proceeding.

18. This SOP was formulated pursuant to a

judgment of the Supreme Court dated 03.01.2024 in the

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Association of Retired

Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad &

Ors.; 2024 (2) BLJ 106-SC.

19. In Clause 5 of the said SOP, the procedure for

personal presence for enforcement/contempt of court

proceedings has been elaborately dealt with. Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

20. It would only be apposite to extract the entire

clause 5 for the sake of completeness as also for ready

reference:-

"5. Personal presence for enforcement/contempt of court proceedings.- 5.1. The court should exercise caution and restraint when initiating contempt proceedings, ensuring a judicious and fair process.

5.2. Preliminary Determination of Contempt: In a proceeding instituted for contempt by wilful disobedience of its order, the court should ordinarily issue a notice to the alleged contemnor, seeking an explanation for their actions, instead of immediately directing personal presence.

5.3. Notice and Subsequent Actions: Following the issuance of the notice, the court should carefully consider the response from the alleged contemnor. Based on their response or absence thereof, it should decide on the appropriate course of action. Depending on the severity of the allegation, the court may direct the personal presence of the contemnor.

5.4. Procedure when personal presence is directed: In cases requiring the Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

physical presence of a government official, it should provide advance notice for an in- person appearance, allowing ample time for preparation. However, the court should allow the officer as a first option, to appear before it through video conferencing.

5.5. Addressing Non-Compliance:

The court should evaluate instances of non- compliance, taking into account procedural delays or technical reasons. If the original order lacs a specified compliance timeframe, it should consider granting an appropriate extension to facilitate compliance.

5.6. When the order specifies a compliance deadline and difficulties arise, the court should permit the contemnor to submit an application for an extension or stay before the issuing court or the relevant appellate/higher court."

21. On a perusal of Clause 5 of the SOP in its

entirety, it would appear to be very clear in the present

circumstance that the order of summoning the Director

General, SSB is farcical and would serve no purpose.

22. It is reiterated by the parties (meaning thereby

that there is no objection on behalf of the officer concerned Patna High Court L.P.A No.669 of 2025 dt.02-07-2025

as well) that the final promotion of the officer to the post of

IG is pending consideration before the ACC, over which the

Directorate of SSB has no control. All that had to be done

prior to the matter being placed before the ACC had already

been complied with without any delay.

23. Under such circumstances, the learned ASG