Petitioner's claim of delayed promotion due to un-communicated training fails; prior intimation proved.

The petitioner, K. Muraleedharan, sought promotion with retrospective effect, contending that he was not properly intimated about a training session at NACIN, Patna, scheduled from July 14, 2025, to August 1, 2025.

He subsequently attended a later training at Chennai and was granted promotion only after completing it.

The contempt petition arose from an earlier order dated January 6, 2026, which left open the issue of whether the petitioner had sufficient notice of the Patna training.

The learned ACGSC presented an email sent by the petitioner himself on July 10, 2025, in which he acknowledged the intimation about the Patna training but stated that train tickets from Ernakulam were unavailable for July 12, 2025.

1. Whether the petitioner had sufficient notice about the training at NACIN, Patna, from July 14, 2025, to August 1, 2025.

2. Whether the Department was justified in offering the petitioner training at Chennai and granting promotion upon its completion.

The Tribunal considered the principles governing contempt proceedings, specifically focusing on whether a clear and deliberate disobedience of a court order occurred.

The core legal principle applied was that for contempt to be established, there must be a willful flouting of a judicial directive.

The court assessed the evidence to determine the factual basis of the petitioner's claim regarding lack of notice.

The Tribunal considered its previous order dated January 6, 2026, which narrowed the issue to whether the petitioner had sufficient notice of the Patna training.

The petitioner’s contention was that he was not intimated about this training, which then necessitated his attendance at a later training in Chennai, thereby delaying his promotion.

However, the learned ACGSC produced an email from the petitioner himself, dated July 10, 2025.

This email explicitly referenced the intimation about the Patna training and the petitioner's inability to secure train tickets.

This direct evidence from the petitioner's own communication "clearly demolished" his claim of not being intimated about the training.

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that if the petitioner had received notice but opted not to attend due to travel constraints, the Department was justified in offering him a subsequent training opportunity and granting promotion upon completion thereof.

The Tribunal held that the Department was justified in offering the petitioner training at Chennai and granting him promotion upon completion of that training.

Accordingly, the Contempt Petition was closed, and the notice stood discharged, with no costs awarded.