C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009
Date of Decision:-September 15,2009
Kuldip Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
J.P.Sharma, Zonal Manager ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr.J.S.Wasu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):
As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner
filed Civil Writ Petition No.11865 of 2006 for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to consider his name for the
post of Assistant Manager (Depot) with effect from 14.12.2001 and if
he is found fit then to promote him to the post of Assistant Manager
(Depot) with effect from 14.12.2001 with all consequential benefits.
The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was contested by the
respondents by filing written statement stating therein that promotion
of the petitioner was withheld on account of disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner which were pending. The writ petition was
disposed of in the following terms vide judgment dated 10.1.2008:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law
laid down in Madan Lal Saini Vs. State of Haryana,
1999 (7) SLR 707. This statement of learned counsel
C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009 2for the petitioner is not rebutted by learned counsel for
the respondents but learned counsel for the
respondents has added that the case of the promotion
of the petitioner will be subject to the decision of any
other inquiry, if so pending against him as on
14.12.2001.
The petition is disposed of in terms of Madan Lal
Saini’s case (supra) and in terms of this order.”
The operative part of Madan Lal’s case (supra) reads
as follows:-
“For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition
and direct the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the higher rank(s) from
the date his juniors were promoted taking into
consideration his suitability based on record which
can legally be taken note of including punishment(s)
that have been awarded as per law. These directions
be carried out within a period of three months.”
It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents
failed to comply with the aforesaid judgment of this Court and thus,
they are guilty of committing contempt of this Court.
In response to the aforesaid petition, the respondents
filed reply by way of affidavit of J.P.Sharma, Zonal Manager (North)
re-designated as Director, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office
(North) Sector 24, Noida, wherein it was submitted that there was no
dispute with the legal preposition in Madan Lal’s case (supra).
However, number of cases were pending against the petitioner and
C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009 3
punishment had already been imposed, therefore, the petitioner was
not entitled to be promoted in view of number of penalties already
imposed upon him and also in view of pendency of the vigilance
cases. The case of the petitioner was put to the Zonal Office which
conveyed its decision to the Regional Office on 1.4.2008 vide
Annexure R/1 and the Regional Office informed its decision to the
District Office on 13.5.2008 vide Annexure R/2 and the legal notice of
the petitioner was duly replied by counsel for the Corporation vide
Annexure R/3 besides the petitioner was also conveyed through
registered post and thus a speaking order was passed explaining the
reasons why he was not found eligible for promotion as on
14.12.2001 and the aforesaid decision of the respondents was in
absolute conformity with the order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court on 10.1.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that in view of the pleadings of the respondents in the writ Court, the
promotion of the petitioner was withheld only on account of pendency
of disciplinary proceedings with regard to vigilance case No.2510 in
which the petitioner stood exonerated and, therefore, it cannot be
stated now that there were some other inquiries/proceedings were
pending against the petitioner on 14.12.2001 and on that account the
petitioner was not eligible for promotion. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, there was no detail of any other vigilance
case which was allegedly pending on 14.12.2001 which could effect
his promotion to the next higher rank and the reasons given by the
respondents vide Annexures R1 to R3 ignoring the petitioner from
promotion are of no consequence whatsoever and are not sufficient
C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009 4
to nullify the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by this Court in CWP
No.11865 of 2006 and thus, the respondents are liable to be
punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
has stated that the reply filed by the respondents in the writ petition
did not confine to the withholding of the promotion of the petitioner
only on account of pendency of vigilance case No.2510 as number of
cases were pending against the petitioner or punishment had been
imposed upon him and it was categorically held by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court that “the case of the promotion of the
petitioner will be subject to the decision of any other inquiry, if so
pending against him as on 14.12.2001. Learned counsel for the
respondent has also referred to the averments made in affidavit
dated 11.8.2009 filed by Mohinder Singh, Assistant General Manager
(Admn.) Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Sector 31,
Chandigarh wherein it has been stated that a total number of 105
disciplinary cases were initiated against the petitioner including those
which stand decided or pending and the present controversy is
confined only to promotion claimed by the petitioner to the post of
Assistant Manager, which as per him, was due on 14.12.2001.
Counsel for the respondent has further pointed out that for the
purpose of his promotion at the relevant time, the vigilance cases
given in the list Annexure R/4 at Nos.10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 27
were relevant as these were pending against the petitioner on
14.12.2001 and, therefore, he could not be considered for promotion
as claimed by him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
C.O.C.P.No.40 of 2009 5
the pleadings of the parties.
While disposing of the case of the petitioner on 10.1.2008
the Hon’ble Division Bench observed as under:-
“The learned counsel for the respondents had added
that the case of promotion of the petitioner will be
subject to the decision of any other inquiry, if so
pending against him as on 14.12.2001.”
Keeping in view all the facts, circumstances and
pleadings of the parties, it cannot be held that the case of the
promotion of the petitioner was to be considered only subject to the
decision of vigilance case No.2510 as it is clearly mentioned that the
petitioner was to be promoted subject to the decision of any other
inquiry. About 10 disciplinary cases were pending/or decided
(punishment awarded) against the petitioner and, therefore, the
respondents were right in law while not considering his case.
Thus, I find that there was no disobedience on the part of
the respondents, for not complying with the direction of this Court, as
alleged by the petitioner.
No merit. Dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Garg)
September 15,2009 Judge
AS