IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
O.P. Nimesh - Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Gauba - Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 50 of 2019 & CM Appl. 53258 of 2019
Decided On : 24-08-2021
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilful violation of the judgment dated 22nd October, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2466/2017.
2. The petitioner, being a doctor with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) had approached this Court by way of a writ petition impugning order dated 26th February, 2016 whereby the petitioner had been denied promotion to the rank of Inspector General (Medical) and order dated 23rd January, 2017 whereby the representation made by the petitioner to hold a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was rejected.
3. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd October, 2018. It was held that the DPC proceedings held on 15th July, 2015 were illegal and the same were set aside to the extent that the petitioner was found unfit for promotion. The respondents were directed to convene a review DPC for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of IG (Medical) within a period of eight weeks and it was directed that the petitioner be assessed by giving reasons strictly in accordance with rules and instructions. Relevant part of the directions given are set out below:
"15. ...We are of the view that the DPC proceedings held on 15th July, 2015 are illegal to the extent that petitioner was found unfit for promotion. The same are set aside to that extent. A review DPC shall be convened by the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of IG (Medical) within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the copy of judgment and assess the petitioner by giving reasons strictly in accordance with rules and instructions. If the petitioner is found fit for promotion as IG (Medical), the same shall relate back to 4th March, 2016, the date from which Officers junior to the petitioner have been promoted with all consequential benefits. The pay of the petitioner shall be fixed on national basis on such promotion. The petition is allowed. No costs."
4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondents did not act in compliance with the said judgment, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition for initiating contempt proceedings. The present petition came up first before this Court on 21st January, 2019, when notice thereof was issued. The respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment dated 22nd October, 2018. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 15th April, 2019.
5. A short affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 23rd March, 2021 wherein it is stated that pursuant to the judgment dated 22nd October, 2018 review DPC meeting was convened by the respondents on 21st June, 2019 and the petitioner was found unfit for promotion to the post of IG (Medical). The relevant part of the minutes of the review DPC meeting are set out below:
"`7. In compliance of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 22.10.2018, the review DPC duly perused the records and the officer has not been assessed fit for promotion due to the following reasons:
(i) In the APAR for the year 2012-13, the said officer was graded 'Good' by Admn Reporting Officer and 'Zero' (3.66 numerical grading) by Technical Reviewing Officer. Accepting Authority while agreeing with the remarks of Admn/Technical Reporting/Reviewing Authorities, graded him 'Very Good'. In view of the adverse remarks endorsed in the APAR for the years 2012-13 and the fact that the Accepting Authority has agreed with the adverse remarks although grading him as very good, the DPC in terns of DoPT OM dated 18.02.2008 have assessed the APAR in toto and have concluded that the APAR be graded as 'Good'. Thus, his overall grading has been assessed as be
Contempt proceedings require clear evidence of willful disobedience; mere surmises are insufficient.
DPC assesses promotion suitability based on APAR entries, not just numerical grading; unexpunged adverse remarks justify 'Unfit' finding despite benchmark met; limited judicial review absent perversi....
Review DPC may change grading based on ACR entries with recorded reasons; courts cannot substitute expert assessment absent mala fides or illegality.
In contempt proceedings, technical non-compliance with promotion consideration direction is not contumacious if remedied; disputes on PwD zone of consideration and seniority merits require separate p....
The tribunal upheld the discretion of the Departmental Promotion Committee to deny promotion based on past misconduct, aligning with established regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'displeasure' is not a penalty enlisted in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and cannot be used to deny promotion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.