The Tribunal lacks statutory authority to review contempt orders, emphasizing that contempt proceedings focus solely on compliance, not merits.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, Member (J)

MA No.535/2025

Miscellaneous Application No.535/2025 has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s) :-

“(1) Allow the review application, recall the impugned order dated 14.01.2025 and proceeds as per law for determining whether disobedience has been committed, whether the disobedience is willful and deliberate, whether opportunity need to be given to the respondent to remove, erase, and purge itself of contumacious conduct and resultant effects and to determine what punishment to the respondent would meet the ends of justice.

(II) Such further orders may be passed in favour of the applicant petitioner as may be considered just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Contempt Petition as filed by him has been disposed of by the Tribunal on 14.01.2025. He has filed this Application on 31.01.2025 seeking review of the said order as such the same is within limitation.

3. He submits that the Contempt Petition was filed by the applicant, aggrieved of the wilful violation of the order dated 01.03.2024, in OA No.2007/2022. He submits that on 01.03.2024 the following observations were made by the Tribunal in OA No.2007/2022:-

“(a) the minutes/proceedings of the DPC for the year 2020-21 (Group A post), which is the subject of this OA, are quashed and set aside only to the extent they relate to promotion to the post of CGM (Engineering) from the post of GM (Engineering).

(b) the subsequent promotion orders dated 01.10.2021 bearing No.50/2021 also stands quashed and set aside with respect to promotion from GM (Engineering) to CGM (Engineering) only.

(c) any other consequential order(s) with respect to promotion from the post of GM (Engineering) to CGM (Engineering) which may have been passed on the recommendations of the said DPC proceedings, too shall stand quashed so far as it relates only to the post of CGM (Engineering).

(d) the respondents shall convene a meeting of the Review DPC immediately and while conducting such a review, specific observations and directions contained in this order shall be given due consideration.

(e) depending upon the recommendations of the DPC, necessary promotion orders shall be reissued for the post of CGM (Engineering).”

4. He submitted that the respondents were required to conduct review DPC however they have done the same in the spirit of the order of the tribunal. The applicant had approached the Tribunal claiming non-compliance since the respondents had disobeyed the order of the Tribunal by not holding the DPC in terms of para 14 (d) of the decision, rather an Office Order No.599/2024, dated 28.03.2024 was passed. 

That the Tribunal has erred in considering the same as a compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in the said OA as such the present MA has been filed seeking review.

5. He submitted that the office order No. 599/2024 has nothing to do with the DPC-2021, rather it pertains to the DPC of 2023-2034. Therefore, the respondents are guilty of wilful non-compliance.

6. Upon notice in the MA, respondents have filed reply to the said MA. The counsel for the respondents, drawing attention to the reply, stated that there is no statutory provision in the Contempt of Courts Act for enabling the court to review its any order passed in the contempt proceedings. It is also trite law that power of review is not the inherent jurisdiction of any court or Tribunal, rather it is the statutory power vesting such jurisdiction of review in the concerned court or Tribunal and in absence of such provision, the review is not maintainable.

7. He has also relied on t