IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of court requires clear evidence of willful disobedience of an unambiguous order; unintentional mistakes do not constitute contempt.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The contempt application is taken out by the petitioner alleging the violation of the orders/direction passed by the Division Bench on 2nd February, 2022 in WPCT 1 of 2022. The contempt application was admitted on the first motion as the direction was passed upon the petitioner to serve the copy of the contempt application upon the alleged contemnors. After the service was affected, the alleged contemnors appeared and an opportunity was given to file the affidavit in response to the allegation made in the contempt application. The alleged contemnor was to file an affidavit-in-opposition disclosing the stand in relation to an allegation contained in the contempt application and further response by the petitioner in the form of an affidavit is also filed.

2. The dispute originated on the order dated 4th November, 2020 issued by the Under Secretary (PSP-IV) & Cadre, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (PSP Division) reverting the petitioner to the post of a Junior Passport Assistant (Erstwhile LDC) under the provisions of fundamental Rule 31A. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 1153 of 2020. It is a specific stand of the petitioner before the Tribunal as well as this Court that she was appointed in the post of a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground w.e.f., 3rd January, 2002. The petitioner sat in the typing examination on 27.07.2007 but was found unsuccessful. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 3rd July, 2008 and thereafter, was considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk which is re-designated as Senior Passport Assistant. Despite having not passed the typing test, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the departmental examination for the promotional post of Assistant Superintendent (Group-B) and she was ranked 8th in All India Basis. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as the Assistant Superintendent (Group-B) w.e.f., 12th October, 2015. As indicated above, by an order dated 04.11.2020 the petitioner was reverted to the post of a Junior Passport Assistant which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal application was finally disposed on 26.11.2021 quashing and setting aside the said order dated 04.11.2020 as the authority did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and there is a flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal ultimately passed the following directions:

“7. In such backdrop, we set aside the orders dated 04.11.2020 and 11.11.2020 (Annexure A-9 and A-10 respectively) and direct the competent respondent authority to:

(i) Issue a show cause notice to the applicant within 2 weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant is directed to respond to such notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice, and, her reply will be decided upon within the next fortnight by the authorities, and, if necessary, by according a personal hearing.

(ii) In the event the applicant’s claim brought forward in her reply is not substantiated, the competent authority shall call the applicant for a Typewriting test within 4 weeks thereafter which the applicant is directed to attend.

(iii) After assessing the applicant’s performance in the Typewriting test, and, having noted the provisions of the rules/instructions as relevant for this purpose, the said authority would issue their orders in accordance with law.

(iv) In the event the applicant does not respond to the show cause notice within the specified time period or fails to appear at the Typewriting test, the respondent s would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and no further opportunities would be given to the applicant.

(v) Consequent to issue of the final orders by the respondent authorities, the period during which their orders dated 04.11.2020 and 11.11.2020 are being set aside, should be regularized in a