TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal was, Respondent No. is the Principal Secretary of the Department and was expected to exhibit more zeal and enthusiasm in carrying out the directions of the Tribunal. Even though he was not party to the DPC yet he could implement the Tribunal's order on other courts. He did not explain the delay in calling the special DPC. He also failed to direct his office to place all the relevant service records of the applicants and his juniors who were impleaded as respondents in the original application. He took no steps for cancellation of their promotions or even for regularisation of their promotions. Taking into consideration all these omissions and commissions by him. We are of the opinion that he should be sentenced to pay fine of &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment instead of complying with the directions, approached this Court by way of special leave petition which was dismissed on 2nd April, 1990. The DPC was summoned thereafter in June 1990. It recommended: (i) The petitioner be confirmed on the post of District Organizer w.e.f. 1.4.1970 (Ann. R-IV). (ii) The case of the petitioner was considered as on 28.4.73, 13.6.78 and 31.7.84 and was found fit to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director as on 31.7.1984 only. While recommending the petitioner's case as on 31.7.1984 the DPC also made the following observations: (i) The recommendation is subject to the condition that the department certifies the petitioner's integrity beyond doubt. (ii) The Department has also to implement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nth from today and report compliance on 31.8.1991. 5 . It is undisputed that the order was implemented within the time granted by the Tribunal. But the respondent Once again, approached the Tribunal in its contempt jurisdiction before which the appellants tendered unqualified apology and explained that respondent had been granted promotion as Deputy Director as directed by the Tribunal with effect from 1st July, 1984 and his promotion to the post of Joint Director was already recommended to the Public Service Commission. The Tribunal however found after examining the record of DPC produced before it that the conclusion of the DPC were illegal and revealed intentional down-grading of the respondent. It also found that the appellants did not....