2023 (1) TMI 443

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal held that the petitioner-department could not withhold the promotion of the respondent-employee merely due to the pendency of departmental proceedings and same could be subject to the outcome of the same. The review was also filed which was dismissed on 22.11.2016 (Annexure P-5). The present petition was filed on 03.05.2017, apparently only on the strength of the fact that a departmental order had been passed in the meantime on 15.02.2017 (Annexure P-8) against the employee withholding the three increments of pay with cumulative effect. We have been informed that the employee has also voluntary retired on 02.11.2021. The Tribunal had granted the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents. In such circumstances, directions were issued that it was only to deprive the applicant of his valuable right of consideration of promotion. It was also held that the order of promotion shall be subject to the outcome of the departmental proceedings. Apparently, the petitioners have succeeded in their endeavor to deny the respondent-employee the benefits of promotion, as firstly they chose to file the review to prolong the proceedings for almost a period of one year. Thereafter, after the review was dismissed they chose not to file the writ petition for a period of almost six months and only filed the same on 03.05.2017. An argument as such was raised before the Coordinate Bench on which notice motion was issued that a punishment o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. I have gone through the averment made in the affidavit filed by Mr. Pragya Singh, working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (HQ) (Vigilance). Instead of giving reasons for not considering the applicant's case within the time, they tried to circumvent the order of this court by giving reasons that they have passed the punishment order dated 15.02.2017 in compliance of the order of this Court. This to my mind is contemptuous action on their part for which they are liable to settle with the proceeding under the Contempt of Court. 4. Before initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents, they are given another last chance to apprise this court as to whether they had considered the case of the applicant....