Union Of INDIA & Ors. vs. Shashank Sharma & Ors.

Facts

The respondents, employees of the petitioners (Union of India & Ors.), filed a contempt petition (CP 388/2023) alleging violation of a Tribunal order dated March 28, 2023. The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to consider the respondents for promotion to the post of Intelligence Officer as per Recruitment Rules (RRs) within 60 weeks. The petitioners subsequently issued an order dated August 28, 2023, rejecting the respondents' claim for promotion. The respondents argued this rejection was in disobedience of the Tribunal's order, as they were eligible for promotion based on being Senior Tax Assistants (STAs) and having been considered eligible for a departmental examination. The petitioners contended they rejected the claim because the respondents were not STAs on the crucial date of April 1, 2017, for the vacancy year 2017-18.

Held

The Court held that the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require a higher standard of proof, necessitating satisfaction that the disobedience was willful and intentional. The Court noted that while the respondents were eligible as Senior Tax Assistants (STAs) on the date of the examination and had been considered eligible for it, the petitioners rejected their claim based on them not being STAs on the crucial date of April 1, 2017. However, the Court observed that the respondents, at this stage, agreed not to pursue contempt proceedings if granted liberty to challenge the order dated August 28, 2023. Accordingly, with the consent of both parties, the impugned order (presumably the order rejecting the claim, though the judgment refers to the contempt petition being set aside) was set aside. The respondents were granted liberty to challenge the order dated August 28, 2023, by way of appropriate proceedings. The Court clarified that this order did not comment on the merits of the August 28, 2023 order or the respondents' entitlement to promotion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated August 28, 2023, passed by the petitioners rejecting the respondents' claim for promotion, constitutes willful contempt of the Tribunal's order dated March 28, 2023, which directed consideration for promotion as per Recruitment Rules? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that they had considered the respondents' case as per the Tribunal's directions and issued a speaking order, thus there was no willful contempt. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpati Duggal, emphasizing that contempt proceedings require proof of willful and intentional disobedience, not mere non-compliance, and that compelling circumstances can excuse non-compliance. Respondent's argument: The respondents contended that the rejection order was a sham and a willful contempt, as it was based on untenable grounds. They argued that the RRs did not mandate being an STA on the crucial date, and even if it did, the petitioners had waived this condition by considering them eligible for the departmental examination and declaring them qualified. They relied on the High Court of Hyderabad judgment in S. Kiranmayi v. N. Sambasiva Rao & Ors. to support the contention that rejection on untenable grounds amounts to willful violation.