H.D. Chakraborty vs U.K. Bansal D.G. BSF and Another

G.P. Mittal, J.—This Contempt Petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been preferred by the Petitioner on

the ground that the order dated 21.03.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 44904/1994 has not been complied with by the Respondents. It is stated that

although Respondents were being represented, yet a copy of the judgment was also forwarded to the Director General, BSF by the Petitioner

through a letter dated 25.04.2011 requesting for immediate action in terms of the directions passed by this Court followed by a reminder dated

27.12.2011. Thus, it is urged that non compliance of the order dated 21.03.2011 on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 is deliberate and

contumacious and they are liable to be punished for contempt.

The Petitioner was imposed with a sentence of severe reprimand and reduction of seniority by 3 years i.e. by directing that the Petitioner''s rank

and precedent of promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 14.09.1990 although he had been actually promoted as such on

14.09.1987.

By the judgment dated 21.03.2011 in W.P. (C) No. 4904/1994 the said order was set aside and the Petitioner was absolved of the charges

framed against him. Certain directions were issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Para 38 of the judgment which are extracted hereunder:-

Noting that as a result of the penalty imposed, petitioner could not earn promotions, we direct Review DPC to be held and consider

petitioner''s candidature for promotion by considering the ACRs of the petitioner as of the date when DPC met and in which persons junior to the

petitioner were promoted. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits, if held entitled to be promoted, except back-wages.

Noting that the petitioner has since retired, we clarify that his pension would be fixed accordingly with reference to the higher post and would be

paid as per scale of pay applicable with effect from the date pension became payable.

A status report dated 19.03.2012 has been filed by the Respondents whereby it is stated that in compliance of the order of this Court a DPC

was conducted and the Petitioner was considered for promotion, but was not found fit as per its Service Rules. Para 6 of the Status Report is

extracted hereunder:-

That, it is most respectfully submitted that in compliance of the directions of the Hon''ble Court, a review DPC was conducted on 19.12.2011

with reference to DPC held on 22nd Nov. 1995 and the subsequent DPCs. It is most respectfully submitted that the required bench mark for

promotion from Deputy Commandant to Second-in-Command for all the relevant DPCs is ""Very Good"", in terms of the Selection-cum-Merit

method. It is submitted that the petitioner could not secure the requisite bench mark in all the DPCs from 22nd Nov. 1995 to 09th Feb. 2001,

hence he was not recommended for empanelment and promotion to the next higher rank by the aforesaid DPC.

It is urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he was never informed that he had ever been considered in any DPC for the promotion

or that he was not found suitable.

Copy of the order dated 23.03.2012 has been supplied to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner during the hearing of the Petition. Since a

Review DPC was constituted albeit after some delay and the Petitioner was considered and found unsuitable for promotion to the next higher rank,

it cannot be said that the Respondents contumaciously disobeyed the order dated 21.03.2011. The Respondents have explained that delay in

implementation of the order dated 21.03.2011 was on account of involvement of various offices and tracing of personal records of the Petitioner.

In this view of the matter, no case of contempt is made out against the Respondents.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.