Rajeev Garg @APPELLANT@Hash Rajiv Swaroop And Ors

The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereafter `the Tribunal') by its order dated 1-12-2017 in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of

the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 finding the respondents in willful disobedience of its order dated 23-6-2016, and having committed contempt, has

made this reference for their punishment.

The Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016 reads as under:-

mi;qZDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj ;g vknsâ€k fn;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZ ds o’kZ 2004&2005 ds okf’kZd

dk;Z ewY;kadu dks izfrosnd vf/kdkjh vkSj leh{kd vf/kdkjh ds lexz ewY;kaduksa ds vk/kkj ij larks’kizn ekU; fd;k tkos vkSj mDr lexz ewY;kadu ds

vuqlkj ,oa vk/kkj ij o’kZ 2005&2006 dh mi funsâ€kd in dh fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) inksUufr ds fy, vihykFkhZ dh vH;fFkZrk ij iqufoZpkj fd;k tkos vkSj

vihykFkhZ dks ,sls fopkj.k esa mi funsâ€kd ds in ij inksUufr ds fy, mi;qDr ik;k tk, rks mls mDr inksUufr iznku dh tkosA bl vknsâ€k dh ikyuk bl vknsâ€k

dh fnukad ls 3 ekg esa dh tkosA

Reply to contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that pursuant to the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016, treating the petitioner's ACR for

the year 2004-05 as satisfactory, a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held and the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of

Deputy Director was considered. As the petitioner was suffering a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeals) Rules, 1958 issued on 12-4-2005, vide order dated 20-4-2018 the petitioner's result of review DPC was kept in sealed cover till the

outcome of the charge-sheet. It ahs been submitted compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016 has been now made, neither any contempt

of the Tribunal's order is made out nor can the respondents be punished for contempt.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that taking into consideration the charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 issued to

petitioner at the review DPC for FY 2005-06 considering the petitioner's promotion to the post of Deputy Director was wholly malafide as the

respondents could not have taken the charge-sheet aforesaid into consideration as it was not taken into consideration when the DPC was first held for

promotion to the post of Dy. Director. He submitted that the status of the petitioner as of 1-4-2005 alone could have been considered by the review

DPC. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed submitted that the methodology adopted by the review DPC in considering the charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 was only to

circumvent the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016. He submitted that the Tribunal having found the respondent in contempt and the contempt having

been aggravated by the mischief of the respondents in the farcical DPC for 2005-06 for promotion to the post of Dy. Director they be visited with

exemplary punishment.

Heard. Considered.

The jurisdiction of this court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is to ascertain whether the orders of the court/ Tribunal have been

willfully disobeyed. On that test it has to be taken into consideration as to what the specific orders/ directions of the court/ Tribunal on 23-6-2016

were. A perusal of the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016 shows that it entailed treating the petitioner's ACR of 2004-05 as satisfactory and then

considering him for promotion to the post of Deputy Director against the vacancies of the year 2005-06 by the review DPC. On the case set up by

respondents the petitioner's ACR for the year 2004-05 has indeed been treated to be satisfactory as directed by the Tribunal and has been thereafter

considered by the review DPC for promotion to the post of Dy. Director against the vacancy of 2005-06. But the petitioner's result has been kept in

sealed cover for reason of pendency of charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 against him.

I am of the considered view that it was open as a whole for the review DPC to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Dy. Director

against the year 2004-05. The alleged fact that the charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 was not taken into consideration by the DPC held on 26-8-2006, for

the post of Dy. Director against the vacancies of 2005-06 can not be a matter for consideration in this contempt petition. Nor can this court in the

contempt petition hold that the charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 could not have been considered by the review DPC for promotion to the post of Dy.

Director against the vacancies of 2005-06. As to whether the charge-sheet dated 12-4-2005 could be considered or not would be a matter for the

appropriate court to address.

For this contempt petition the bottom line is that the petitioner's ACR for 2004-05 has been treated as satisfactory and he has been considered by the

review DPC for promotion to the post of Dy. Director against the vacancies of 2005-06. The direction of the Tribunal has been complied with albeit

belatedly.

In the circumstance obtaining, I am of the considered view that no disobedience of the Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016 at all can be found against the

respondents. The Tribunal's order dated 23-6-2016 has been complied with by the respondents. And if the keeping of the petitioner's result in sealed

cover by the Review DPC on 20-4-2018 is a cause of aggrievement, the petitioner is free to take his remedy thereagainst as advised.

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.