RAJINDER KUMAR SACHAR Vs. N N VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner the respondents havecommitted civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act1971. The allegation is that the respondents have violated the undertaking given tothe High Court which is incorporated in the order dated 20/05/1993 in CivilWrit Petition No. 3601 /92.

(2.) A reply on behalf of the respondents in the contempt petition has been filed.The petitioner has filed the rejoinder also.

(3.) The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3601/92 challenging an orderpassed by the Government of India on 1/11/1992 by which the Government decided not to promote and appoint the petitioner as Inspector General ofPolice in B.S.F. and ordered that the services of the petitioner be placed at thedisposal of the Government of Orissa with immediate effect. When the writpetition was pending the Government of India offered to consider the case of thepetitioner for promotion as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. on the basis of therecords as on 11/02/1991. Accepting this offer the petitioner agreed towithdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No. 3601/92 wasdismissed by the High Court on 20/05/1993 as withdrawn recording theundertaking of the Government of India to consider the case of the petitioner forpromotion and appointment as Inspector General of Police in B.S.F. on the basis ofthe records as on 11/02/1991. The Court also directed that till the matterwas decided by the Central Government there would be stay of the order of theCentral Government repatriating the petitioner to his parent State. It is admittedthat pursuant to the order dated 20/05/1993 in CWP 3601/92 the Governmentof India has considered the case of the petitioner as evidenced by their order dated 23/11/1993 (produced as.Annexure-V alongwith the reply of therespondents). The said order shows that after carefully considering the material onrecord as on 11/02/1991 the Central Goverment came to the conclusionthat further, continuation of the deputation to B.S.F. of the petitioner in a highercapacity will not be in public interest. The learned Counsel for the respondentsexplains that this decision of the Government of India was adecision not topromote the petitioner as Inspector General of Police in the B.S.F. Challenging thesaid order dated 23/11/1993 the petitioner has filed Civil Writ PetitionNo. 523/94 before this Court in which Rule D.B: has been issued. The petitionerhas no case that his case was not considered by the Government of India within anytime limit stipulated by the Court. In fact no time limit was stipulated by the Courtfor the said consideration and the decision was taken within a reasonable time. Inso far as the Government of India has complied with the direction to consider thepetitioner's case based on the records as on 11/02/1991, the petitionercannot contend that the respondents have committed civil contempt. According tothe petitioner while the matter was pending consideration before the Governmentof India pursuant to the orders of the High Court, his admitted juniors in IPS werepromoted as Inspector General of Police. The petitioner submits that the Government of India ought not to have promoted his juniors before taking a decision onhis claim for promotion as Inspector General of Police and in so far as theGovernment chose to promote his juniors as Inspector General of Police beforetaking a decision in his case pursuant to the orders of the High Court, theGovernment of India has committed civil contempt. In the order dated 20/05/1993 the offer made by the Government of India was only to consider the case ofthe petitioner for promotion on the basis of records as on 11/02/1991.There was no offer or undertaking not to promote any of the juniors of thepetitioners to the post of Inspector General of Police before a decision was taken inthe petitioner's case. While withdrawing the writ petition, the petitioner did notinsist on a direction not to promote his juniors before his cane was considered. Onthe other hand, it appears that the petitioner sought a direction not to repatriatehim to his parent State before taking a decision on his claim for promotion by theGovernment of India. In the order dated 20/05/1993 this Court specificallydirected that till the matter was decided by the Central Government there wouldbe stay of the order of the Central Government repatriating him to his parent State.Learned Counsel for the respondents points out that the direction not to repatriatehim to his parent State pending decision by the Central Government on his claimfor promotion as Inspector General of Police and the absence of any direction notto promote his juniors before taking a decision in the case of the petitioner aresignificant as far as the allegation of committing civil contempt is concerned. Iconsider that there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for therespondents. If the petitioner wanted to prevent the promotion of his juniors beforea decision was taken in his case, he ought to have insisted for such a direction bythe Court while withdrawing his writ petition. Having failed to do so, the petitionercannot now allege that the respondents should be punished for committingContempt of Court solely on the ground that before taking a decision in his case theGovernment of India made promotions in excigencies of service. The validity of thedecision taken by the Government of India on his claim for promotion or thevalidity and the propriety in promoting his juniors when his claim was pendingdecision, could be questioned by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 523/94which has already been filed by him or in any other appropriate proceedings.There is no wilful disobedience of any order of the Court of any wilful breach of anundertaking given to the Court. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that therespondents have committed any civil contempt by promoting his juniors asInspector General of Police before taking a decision on his claim for promotionpursuant to the order dated 20/05/1993 of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3601/92. Hence, there is no merit in the civil contempt petition. Civil contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.