Dismissed

Chaman Lal Goyal v. D.S. Bains

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012COCP/1543/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a contempt petition alleging violation of its prior order mandating consideration of a petitioner's promotion claim without specific disciplinary reports. The Court found the claim was considered without the 1992-93 adverse report and with the inquiry concluded. Contempt proceedings were dropped.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings were dropped. Rule discharged.

Chaman Lal Goyal Vs D.S. Bains — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

COCP No. 1543 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23^rd January, 2012 .

Chaman Lal Goyal

Petitioner in person

Versus

Shri D.S.Bains Respondent through Mr. M.C.Beri, Addl. AG, Punjab.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶13

Civil Writ Petition No. 4915 of 1995 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2011 in the following terms:-

¶14

16. As a sequel to the above discussion and in view of the observations made by us in the judgment of even date rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 15012 of 1994, we set aside the order dated 14.3.1995 (P-9). The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of D.I.G. (Prisons) without taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992-93. It is worthwhile to note here that Hon'ble the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 31.1.1995, has already issued direction not to consider the pendency of regular inquiry while considering his case for promotion. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.

¶15

17. Before parting it is relevant to mention that during the pendency of the instant petition the petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is dismissed as we do not find any good ground to entertain the same”.

¶16

COCP No. 1543 of 2011. ::-2-::

¶17

It may be seen that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General [Prisons] was required to be considered without taking into consideration the ACR for the year 1992-93. Similarly, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a regular inquiry pending against the petitioner was also not to be taken into consideration while considering him for the afore-stated promotion.

¶18

The first respondent has filed an additional affidavit dated 21.01.2012, which is taken on record. In Para 4 thereof, it is averred that the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been considered and rejected by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 13.01.2012 on the basis of the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1993-94. In other words, the adverse remarks for the year 1992-93 have not been taken into consideration, as was directed by this Court.

¶19

Regarding the pending inquiry, which was also to be kept out of consideration in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the affidavit explains that the said inquiry has already been concluded and is no longer pending. The proceedings of the DPC have been appended with the affidavit as Annexure R-1.

¶20

The petitioner though vehemently contends that the proceedings of the DPC held on 13.01.2012 are not faithful compliance of the directions issued by this Court, nevertheless the respondents can not be said to have willfully or deliberately violated the directions reproduced above as the claim of the petitioner for promotion has been duly considered after excluding the adverse report for the year 1992-93. The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped, however, with liberty to the petitioner to impugned the proceedings of the DPC before an appropriate forum, if so advised.

¶21

Rule discharged. Dasti .

¶22

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

¶23

January 23, 2012. dinesh

Chaman Lal Goyal v. D.S. Bains

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal Goyal v. D.S. Bains

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjit Kumar and Anr. Vs N.K. Jain and Anr.

Jagrup Singh Vs Ranjiv Dalal

Amarjeet Singh Komal Vs Gurdev Singh and Ors.

Avtar Singh Basra Vs Kulbir Singh & Anr.

Tejinder Singh Vs Iqbal Singh Sandhu