Puneet Kumar Rawal vs Sanjay Malhotra And Ors

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the directions dated 24.05.2018 passed by this Court in SBCW No. 7301/2018.

By order dated 24.05.2018, it was directed by this Court as under:-

"In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents are directed to keep one post of Assistant Engineer (E&M) vacant and not to accord promotion/posting pursuant to the order dated 21.05.2018 (Annex.-3) to the incumbent, who are lowest in the seniority list in the category to which the petitioner belongs."

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite order dated 24.05.2018, the respondents have permitted Mr. Suresh Kumar Choudhary to join on the promotion post and, therefore, the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the orders of promotion and posting, were issued on the same date i.e. 21.05.2018 and it is only pursuant to the order of posting that the incumbent Mr. Suresh Kumar Choudhary joined on 31.05.2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any violation of directions issued by this Court.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The Directions issued by this Court on 24.05.2018 were very clear, whereby the respondents were directed "not to accord promotion/posting" pursuant to the order dated 21.05.2018 (Annex.-3) to the incumbent, who are lowest in the seniority list in the category to which the petitioner belongs.

It was apparently not pointed out to the Court, on the date when the order was passed, that already posting orders have been issued by the respondents.

Once the promotion and posting orders have already been issued on 21.05.2018, merely because the incumbent Mr. Suresh Kumar Choudhary joined based on the said order of promotion/posting on 31.05.2018, it cannot be said that the directions issued by this Court has been violated by the respondents.

It is well settled that the proceedings for contempt are quasi criminal in nature and till such time the petitioner is able to bring the case for violation within the four-corners of the directions issued by the Court, no order qua the alleged violation can be passed by the Court.

In view of the above discussion, no case for proceedings against the respondents is made, the notices issued are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.