Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KASHINATH KHER & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon,ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa
Dushyant Dave,Sr.Adv., Ms. Nisha Bagachi and Ms.Indu
Malhotra, Advs.with him for the petitioners
Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., R.N. Keshwani, Adv.with him for
the Respondent Nos.1-3
R.F. Nariman, Sr.Adv., R.V. Rangam, K.Samdani, R.N.Keshwani,
A.V. Rangam and A. Ranganadhan, Advs. with him for the
Respondent No.4
The following order of thecourt was delivered:
O R D E R
These contempt petitionshave been filed fornon-
compliance of the judgment ofthis court in state Bank of
India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors. [(1996) 8 SCC 762].
The substratumof thepetitioners is that despite specific
directions given and positive observations made in the
Judgment, the respondents havenot implementedthe judgment
in itstrue spirit and purport. Onthe other hand,they
have put up the same interpretation of the provisions set
up prior to the judgment as an excuse in promoting the
officers, violating the judgment. Shri Shanti Bhushan,
learnedsenior counsel appearing for therespondents,
learnedseniorcounselappearing for the respondents, has
stated for thepurpose of promotion from MMG Scale IIII to
MMG Scale II and so on, as per thenorms,five years’
confidential reports and six years’ appraisal reports are
necessarily tobe taken into consideration, Recording the
C.Rs. after a lapse of15 years would be an impossibletask
since the officers who had observed the conduct of the
officers to bepromoted wouldeither have retired or would
not beavailable. Inthat backdrop. he had advised the
contemners to go by the existing reports and to consider
them in accordance with the Rulesfor the promotion;
therefore, theyhave not disregarded the directions ofthis
court.
It is seen from the judgment that specific and
unequivocal directions have been given as to how and by
whom C.Rs. areto be written. They relate to two items.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
One isthat the respondents should identify such of the
officers whom opportunity to line assignment of rural/semi-
urban serviceswas given but they did not avail of thesame
and toeliminate suchof the officerswho have nor availed
of the opportunity but could not contemplate assignment but
for no fault oftheirs and those who have completed theline
assignment should be includedin Group A and their cases
shouldbe further considered for further promotion in
accordance with the Rules. Inthe affidavit filed by Mr.
S.S. Partoti, AGM ( Personal & HRD),he hasstatedthat
first part of the direction had been compliedwith and for
the complianceof thesecond part ofthe directions,they
came forward with thesame justification ina different
form. In substance, their contention is that it is not
practicable to write the ACRS at this distance of time.They
have also further stated that they have obtained the advice
of thecounseland onthe faith of that, question,Shri
Shanti Bhushanhas taken responsibility on himself for the
advice and stated that he understoodthe judgment ofthis
court in a manner which is notinconsistent with its letter
spirit. Therefore, therespondents have actedupon it.
Inview of the personal responsibility taken byShri
Shanti Bhushan,his standing atthe barand hisfairness and
candid admission, we accept his statement. Wedo not think
that the officers have wilfully or deliberately disobeyed
the implementation of the orders of the Court.Accordingly,
three month’s time is now givento the respondents to do the
exercise and implement the judgment in its fullspirit.
The Contempt Petitions areaccordingly dismissed.