JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. A promising career in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), commenced as an Assistant Commandant in the year 1986, was sacrificed by the Departmental Authorities at the altar of callous indifference to the directions of the High Court and brazen pen-pushing. The appellant’s active service was curtailed to a little more than a decade-and-a-half while two-and-a-half decades were spent in litigation. The appellant is now retired and assails the impugned order which interfered with the order in a contempt case, directing the appellant to be promoted to the post of Inspector General (I.G.).

3. We heard Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent.

4. The appellant seeks implementation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide order dated 24.12.2019, produced as Annexure P-3; the ultimate conclusions arrived at and the directions issued therein, on the peculiar facts approved by this Court in AnnexureP-4. According to the appellant, the implementation of the directions would require the respondent to reinstate him in service from 10.07.1995, the date of his initial termination to which date would be related the minor penalty imposed by the High Court, of reduction to one lower stage for a period not exceeding three years without cumulative effect or adversely affecting pension. The directions of the High Court with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion has to necessarily follow, urged the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, reckoning which there was a direction by the learned Single Judge to promote the petitioner to the post of I.G, which post was occupied by his immediate junior.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General on the other hand points out that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated validly against the appellant and it culminated in a finding of guilt which finding is approved by the High Court in Annexure P-3 order. The punishment imposed of reduction to a lower stage for three years without cumulative effect would stand against the consideration of the appellant for the three subsequent years from the date of second termination; substituted with minor penalty, when the rigor of the punishment restricts such consideration. The disciplinary proceedings are deemed to be pending during the years when the appellant was out of service. The delinquent having been eventually found guilty, even a sealed cover procedure, if at all carried out, would not inure to the benefit of the appellant. In any event, the appellant has been promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant and retired with due pensionary benefits.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however, would point out that even if the promotion to the post of Inspector General as has been conferred on his immediate junior is not possible, the punishment should be related back to the date of his termination and further promotion could be considered, at least notionally during the period he was out of service, enabling him to retire from a higher post with higher pension. It is also pertinently argued that the contempt case before the High Court is still alive.

7. The appellant’s active service; as we noticed, was short but the litigation pursuant to his termination had a chequered career which we notice from Annexure P-3 judgment. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the year 1986 and in the year 1989 he was charge-sheeted for misconduct. The misconduct alleged was that while functioning as an Officer Commanding of a platoon deployed in a sensitive area, he handed over charge to an Inspector without approval from the competent authority and willfully remained absent without proper leave from 07.04.1988 for a period of 420 days, thereby violating the Central Civil Services (Classification