Judgment

R.M. SAHAI, J.:- The only question is if the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (MPSAT) was justified in sentencing the appellants for contempt of Court not for not complying with the order passed by it within extended time granted by the tribunal itself but for failure to carry out its directions faithfully and in the letter and spirit the tribunal expected of them.

2. Reason for sentencing each of the appellant, in words of Tribunal was,

"Respondent No. (sic) is the Principal Secretary of the Department and was expected to exhibit more zeal and enthusiasm in carrying out the directions of the Tribunal. Even though he was not party to the DPC yet he could implement the Tribunals order on other courts. He did not explain the delay in calling the special DPC. He also failed to direct his office to place all the relevant service records of the applicants and his juniors who were impleaded as respondents in the original application. He took no steps for cancellation of their promotions or even for regularisation of their promotions. Taking into consideration all these omissions and commissions by him. We are of the opinion that he should be sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Respondent No. 2 actively participated in the DPC. In the DPC proceedings, we noticed features which do not support his claim of faithful and sincere compliance of the Tribunals order. We therefore imposed a fine of Rs. 5001- on him. Respondent No.4 by virtue of illegal promotions in his favour continuing on the chair had been responsible for the outcome of contempt of this petition. We sentence him to a fine of Rs. 500/-."

3. A little background appears necessary to be narrated. On 12-9-1989 a petition filed by respondent, an Assistant Director-cum - Project Officer in the Tribunal Welfare Department assailing his supersession and denial of promotion to the post of Deputy Director was allowed and following directions were issued:-

"(i) ACRs communicated after a great deal of delay should be deemed to be non-existing.

(ii) As the advance character roles are not in existence, the case of confirmation be considered within 3 months of the receipt of the orders.

(iii) Since the adverse remarks have been treated to be not existing a special DPC should meet to consider the case of promotion within 6 months of the date of order as in April 1973; for promotion from the rank of Assistant Director/ PO to the post of Deputy Director.

(iv) A special DPC should meet to consider all the cases of the applicant for promotion on the basis of our order with regard to adverse remarks and this DPC should consider the position in the respective years."

But the department instead of complying with the directions, approached this Court by way of special leave petition which was dismissed on 2nd April 1990. The DPC was summoned thereafter in June 1990. It recommended:-

"(i) The petitioner be confirmed on the post of District Organizer w.e.f. 1-4-1970 (Ann. R-IV).

(ii) The case of the petitioner was considered as on 28-4-73, 13-6-78 and 31-7-84 and was found fit to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director as on 31-7-1984 only."

While recommending the petitioners case as on 31-7-1984 the DPC also made the following observations :-

(i) The recommendation is subject to the condition that the department certifies the petitioners integrity beyond doubt.

(ii) The Department has also to implement the recommendations following the procedure of opening the sealed cover as per rules on the date of final orders in the existing departmental enquiries."

4. Since there was delay in summoning the DPC and even the recommendations did not appear to be in compliance with the order of the Tribunal the respondent invoked contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal which found that the department was not justified in delaying the summoning of DPC merely because it had filed the Special Leave Petition in this Court specially when the advice of the learned Advocate General was to the contrary. The Tribun