Substantial compliance and bona fide efforts to implement judicial directions warrant discharge of contempt notices.

The Petitioner, a Superintending Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 15.05.2025 in OA No. 1467/2025.

That order directed the Respondents to conduct a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in accordance with the law and a prior Tribunal order dated 28.09.2010 (OA No. 2605/2009), subject to the outcome of a pending Writ Petition in the High Court.

The Respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that a proposal for the Review of Review DPC-2015 and DPC-2016 was forwarded to the UPSC on 15.01.2026.

The UPSC returned the proposal for corrections, which the Department is currently processing following discussions under the Single Window System in March 2026.

The Petitioner contended that the Respondents failed to specifically mention the 2010 order in their formal proposal letter to the UPSC.

Whether the actions taken by the Respondents constitute "wilful or contumacious" non-compliance with the directions issued in OA No. 1467/2025.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing contempt of court jurisdiction, which require a finding of "wilful or contumacious" disobedience to sustain a charge of contempt.

The court looked for evidence of "good faith" and "substantial steps" taken toward compliance to determine if the delay in implementing the judicial directions amounted to a deliberate affront to the court's authority.

The Tribunal examined the Respondents’ "Self Contained Note" for the DPC and the proposal letter dated 15.01.2026.

It noted that while the Petitioner argued a specific letter omitted the 2010 order, the Self Contained Note (Annexure R-1) explicitly referenced the Tribunal's directions in the 2010 case.

The Tribunal reasoned that the proposal and the note must be read together, and doing so demonstrates substantial steps toward conformity with the original order.

Furthermore, the ongoing engagement with the UPSC via the Single Window System and the revisions being made to the proposal indicate that the Respondents are pursuing the Review DPC process in good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that any remaining delay was administrative in nature and did not rise to the level of intentional defiance.

The Contempt Petition was closed, and the notices issued to the Respondents were discharged.

However, the Tribunal issued a final direction that the Respondents must ensure the Review DPC is concluded expeditiously and in strict conformity with the previous directions.