No contempt where department denies vigilance clearance and applies sealed cover for promotion due to pending criminal charge-sheet, acting per High Court liberty and law on DPC date, despite vacancy cut-off.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules 1992 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure CP-1) passed in O.A. No. 060/888/2019 read with order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court dated 03.07.2020 (Annexure CP-2).

2. The Original Application No. 060/888/2019 filed by the applicant/petitioner, seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Plant Protection Advisor (in short „APPA‟) against the vacancy year 2016-17 onwards as well as consideration for issuance of vigilance clearance certificate, was partly allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2020 with the following directions:-

“16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for issuance of Vigilance Clearance, in the light of observations made hereinabove, and consider the case of the applicant in the light of earlier direction of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal for the post of APPA against vacancies for the year 2016-17 etc. and if the applicant is found eligible, then grant him promotion from due date with all the consequential benefits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.”

3. The respondents, being dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, approached the Hon‟ble High Court by way of CWP No. 9118/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2020, which is extracted hereunder:-

“Present petition has been preferred by Union of India against the order dated 17.1.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") directing the petitioners to consider the case of respondent no. 1 for issuance of vigilance clearance in light of the observations made by it and if he is found eligible then grant him promotion from the due date with all consequential benefits. Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

"16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for issuance of Vigilance Clearance, in the light of observations made hereinabove, and consider the case of the applicant in the light of earlier direction of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal for the post of APPA against vacancies for the year 2016-17 etc, and if the applicant is found eligible, then grant him promotion from due date with all the consequential benefits..."

Grievance of Mr. Jain is that complete liberty has not been given to Union of India to decide the issue of vigilance clearance as per law. He submits that he shall be satisfied if necessary modification to this extent is made.

We have given our due consideration to the operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal. Needless to observe that Union of India is always at liberty to take into consideration not only the order of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal but other judgments also. They are at liberty to decide as per law. We order accordingly.

Writ petition is disposed of.”

4. The petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition alleging non- compliance of the orders aforementioned of this Tribunal and the Hon‟ble High Court.

5. The respondent No. 1 filed compliance affidavit stating that pursuance to the order of this Tribunal dated 17.01.2020and order dated 03.07.2020 of