The failure to promote a qualified officer despite legal directions constitutes willful disobedience of Tribunal orders, justifying contempt proceedings.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By way of the present Contempt Petition, the petitioner has alleged non-compliance of the Order/Judgment dated 20.03.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2357/2023 (Annexure P-1). The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"6.7 In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances brought out above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent has erred in issuing the impugned Charge Memo to the applicant for the act exercised by him as a quasi-judicial officer, without subjecting him to judicial supervision in appeal. We are also of the view that the applicant has exercised due diligence. Coupled with these facts, when there is no financial implication, we allow the present OA with the following directions:-

i) Charge Memo No.C-14011/2/2023-Vigilance-MCA dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside;

ii) The respondent is directed to grant the applicant all consequential benefits flowing from setting aside of the Charge Memo; and

iii) The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide the charge memo dated 13.06.2023, with the intention to deprive him of his rightful promotion to the post of Director General (DG), Corporate Affairs. The petitioner, being the senior-most SAG officer with HAG non-functional grade, became entitled to such promotion upon the retirement of the incumbent on 31.08.2023. However, due to issuance of the charge memo dated 13.06.2023, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The Tribunal had stayed the said charge memo on 28.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) and, therefore, the petitioner stood clear from the vigilance angle. Despite this, instead of considering him for promotion, the respondents assigned the charge of DG (Corporate Affairs) to the petitioner’s junior on ad hoc basis vide order dated 30.11.2023.

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that as vide note dated 02.02.2024, the petitioner’s junior was empanelled for promotion to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs)/HAG and the petitioner’s case was kept in sealed cover on the basis of the said charge memo dated 13.06.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-3), the respondents promoted the petitioner’s junior on an ad hoc basis to the said post.

2.2 Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner’s OA No.2357/2023 was ultimately allowed by this Tribunal on 20.03.2024, with the directions as quoted above.

2.3 Learned counsel argued that in spite of the said Order/Judgment vide which the said charge memo dated 13.06.2023 had been quashed by this Tribunal, the respondents did not promote the petitioner to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs) and continued his junior as DG on an ad hoc basis. Though the petitioner made a representation requesting his consideration for promotion to the post of DG (Corporate Affairs) as per the directions of the Tribunal, the respondents chose to file filed Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) No.5898/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon’ble High Court, vide judgment dated 15.05.2024, dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s decision. Relevant observations are contained in paragraphs 46 to 51 of the said order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:-

"46. Having said so, we may observe that though there is no gain saying that the Courts should be very slow to interdict departmental proceedings at the stage of charge sheet, however, in a case like the present one, considering the factual matrix noted hereinabove and the reasons which appear to be the basis for initiating departmental proceedings agai