Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
O.P. Nimesh – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Gauba – Respondent
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 prom
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
