KASHINATH KHER AND ORS. versus SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 02-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KASHINATH KHER AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court : 
Non-compliance of Court's order-Contempt petition-Allegation that 
C despite specific directions given, respondents did not implement judgment of 
this Court in its trne spirit and purport-Counsel for respondents taking 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·responsibility for the advice on which the respondents were said to have 
acted-Held, the officers have not willfully or deliberately disobeyed the 
implementation of the orders of the Court-Time given to respondents to 
implement the judgment in its full spirit. 
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors., [1996) 8 SCC 
762, directions given to implement the judgment. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 
207-208 of 1997. 
(Under Section 23 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.) 
Dushyant Dave, Nisha Bagachi and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the 
Petitioners. 
Shanti Bhushan and R.N. Keshwani for the Respondent Nos. 1-3: 
R.F. Nariman, R.V. Rangam, K. Samdani, R.N. Keshwani, A.V. 
Rangam and A. Ranganadhan for the Respondei1t No. 4. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These contempt petitions have been filed for non-compliance of the 
judgment of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & 
Ors., [1996) 8 SCC 762. The substratum of the complaint of the petitioners 
is that despite specific directions given and positive observations made in 
H the judgment, the respondents have not implemented the judgment in its 
40 
-
..,, 
:> -
K KHER v. D.K BHAGAT 
41 
true spirit and purport. On the· other hand, they have put up the same A 
interpretation of the provisions set up prior to the judgment as an excuse 
in promoting the officers, violating the judgment. Shri Shanti Bhushan, 
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, has stated that for 
the purpose of promotion from MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II and so 
on, as per the norms, five years' confidential reports and six year's appraisal B 
reports are necessarily to be taken into consideration. Recor~ng the C.Rs. 
after a lapse of 15 years would be an impossible task since thetfficers who 
had observed the conduct of the officers to be promoted would either have 
retired or would not be available. In ~hat backdrop, he had advised the 
contemners to go by the existing repqrts and to consider them in accord-
C 
ance with the Rules for the promotion; therefore, they have not dis-
regarded the directions of this Court. 
It is seen from the judgment that specific and unequivocal directions 
have been given as to how and by whom C.Rs. are to be written. They relate 
to two items. One is that the respondents should identify such of the D 
officers whom opportunity to line assignment of ruraVsemi-urban services 
was given but they did not avail of the same and to eliminate such of the 
officers who have not availed of the opportunity, they ,shall be omitted from 
the list; and such officers who availed of the opportunity but could not 
. contemplate assignment but for no fault of theirs and those who have E 
completed the line assignment should be included in Group A and their 
cases should be further considered for further promotion in accordance 
with the Rules. In the affidavit filed by Mr. S.S. Partoti AGM {Personal & 
HRD), he has stated that first part of the direction had been complied with 
.. 
and for the compliance of the second part of the directions, they came 
forward with the samedustification in a 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 
F 
of the counsel and on the faith of that, they have come to that under-
standing. When put a question, Shri Shanti Bhushan has taken respon-
sibility on himself for the advice and stated that he unc!erstood the G 
judgment of this Court in a manner which is not inconsistent with its letter 
spirit. Therefore, the respondents have acted upon it. 
In view of the personal responsibility taken by Shri Shanti Bhushan, 
his standing at the bar and his fairness and candid admission, we accept H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A his statement. We do not think that the officers have wilfully or deliberately 
disobeyed the implementation of the orders of the Court. Accordingly, 
three months' time is now given to the respondents to do the exercis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.