(A) Contempt of Court — Compliance with court’s direction — “Consequential benefits” — Scope and import —
Where disciplinary proceedings were quashed by the High Court on the ground of real likelihood of bias and employee was exonerated of all blame — Employer directed to grant all consequential benefits — Whether such direction includes promotion and arrears of monetary benefits, even though there was no specific prayer challenging the cancellation of promotion — Held, yes —
Once disciplinary proceedings were set aside on a ground not attributable to any fault of the employee, the employer was duty-bound to restore the employee to the same position which he would have occupied had the illegal proceedings not intervened. The expression “all consequential benefits” is of wide amplitude and would include restoration of promotion withheld or cancelled on account of such proceedings together with monetary benefits from the date of entitlement. Absence of a specific prayer for quashing of the cancellation order cannot defeat the substantive relief flowing from the setting aside of the disciplinary proceedings. Ends of justice cannot be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities.
— C.O. Arumugam v. State of T.N., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199;
Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, relied on
— Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491, distinguished
(Paras 25, 26, 27, 30)
(B) Service Law — Promotion — Retrospective promotion — Promotion kept in abeyance due to pending enquiry — Enquiry subsequently quashed —
Held, employee entitled to promotion from the date on which promotion results were first declared — Cancellation of promotion being consequential to vitiated enquiry cannot survive — Appellant directed to be granted promotion from 28-7-2001 (date of promotion results) from Manager Scale-II to Manager Scale-III with all monetary benefits and interest @ 6% p.a. from the due dates —
The Court held that denial of such promotion would amount to perpetuating injustice since the disciplinary proceedings were nullified for bias. The fact that the appellant was later promoted in 2012 does not obliterate his right to retrospective benefits from 2001.
(Paras 23, 25, 26, 30, 32)
(C) Contempt of Court — Maintainability — Scope of interference —
Where two possible interpretations of the order existed, the action of respondents cannot be held as wilful disobedience — However, Court may mould relief to secure justice —
Held, although contempt not made out in strict sense, substantive directions can be issued to effectuate the judgment and avoid injustice to the successful litigant.
(Paras 28, 32)
(D) Administrative Law — Technicalities — Absence of pleadings or specific prayer — Effect —
Held, where relief is implicit in the consequential direction already granted, absence of a formal pleading cannot deprive a litigant of substantive rights — Procedural technicalities must yield to justice —
(Para 26)
(E) Service Law — Consequential promotions and arrears — Superannuation — Effect —
Held, employee who superannuated during pendency of proceedings still entitled to notional and monetary benefits flowing from retrospective promotion granted — Such benefits do not abate merely due to retirement —
(Paras 27, 30, 32)
(F) Directions Issued —
Respondents directed to:
Grant appellant promotion from Manager Scale-II to Scale-III w.e.f. 28-7-2001;
Pay all monetary benefits with 6% interest per annum from respective due dates;
Consider appellant’s claim for further promotions (2016, 2017, 2018 exercises) separately, without rejecting on limitation or laches.
Contempt proceedings not pursued, but compliance directed within four weeks.
(Paras 31, 32, 33)
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed.
High Court judgment dated 24-8-2023 in Contempt Case No. 311 of 2023 set aside.
Directions issued as above.
No order as to costs.
2025 INSC 110
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________ of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10245 of 2024)
K. SAMBA MOORTHY APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
SANJIV CHADHA & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the final
judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Contempt Case No. 311 of
2023. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the
Contempt Petition holding that the orders the violation of which,
2
was complained of, have been duly complied with by the alleged
contemnor-respondents. The High Court further held that
promotion up to Scale-V cannot be granted as there was no
adjudication in the order of the Writ Court and further that the
cancellation of the promotion order had not been challenged. The
High Court noted thatsuch reliefs cannot be granted in the contempt
case.
Brief facts :-
3. In 1983, the appellant was appointed as a Probationary Officer
in the Bank of Baroda and in the year 1992, he was promoted to the
Manager cadre (MMG-II).
4. When the appellant was serving as Branch Manager, Utran
Branch, District Surat, Gujarat, a Show Cause Notice dated
22.03.1999 for alleged lapses and irregularities committed by him
during his service was issued. The appellant submitted his reply on
12.04.1999. A further Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2000 setting
3
out ten more irregularities was issued to the appellant and he filed
his reply on 19.02.2000.
5. At this stage, the appellant appeared in the promotion exercise
from Scale-II to Scale-III on 22.12.2000. A charge-sheet in the
disciplinary proceedings was issued to him on 26.12.2000.
6. The results of the promotion were declared on 28.07.2001 and
the appellant’s result was kept in abeyance in view of the pendency
of the disciplinary proceedings. On 23.08.2001, after a detailed
enquiry and after observing serious lapses on the part of the
appellant in opening of the savings bank accounts of one Mr.
Tejuddin Hussain and one Mr. Tajeshwali Basha and in
sanctioning, documentation and disbursement of loans to the
aforesaid customers, a minor penalty was imposed on the appellant.
The penalty was “reduction in pay by 1 stage in a time scale for a
period of 3 years without cumulative effect and not adversely
affecting his pension.” The Appeal filed by the appellant before the
Appellate Authority was rejected on 25.01.2002 and the order of
4
the Disciplinary Authority was upheld. A review before the
Reviewing Authority was also rejected on 01.01.2003.
7. Admittedly, on 30.08.2002, the appellant was informed by a
letter of Senior Branch Manager that his promotion from MMG/SII to MMG/S-III, that was kept in abeyance, stood cancelled. On
16.03.2008, the appellant challenged the orders passed in the
disciplinary proceedings and called in question the correctness of
the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and
the Reviewing Authority. There was no prayer challenging the
cancellation of the promotion.
8. Pending the Writ Petition, in the year 2012, the appellant
appeared in the promotion exercise and was promoted from ScaleII to Scale-III as a Senior Branch Manager. It should be recorded
herein that he further appeared in the subsequent promotion
exercises of 2016, 2017 and 2018 from Scale-III to Scale-IV but
was declared unsuccessful.
5
9. The learned Single Judge, by a judgment dated 20.07.2017,
allowed his Writ Petition on the ground that the Enquiry Officer,
who undertook the process of the enquiry, was junior to the
appellant in Scale-II and the said officer had also appeared for
interview for promotion to the category of Scale-III along with the
appellant. The learned Single Judge concluded that there was real
likelihood of bias. So holding, the learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petition in the following terms.
“14. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the
definite opinion that there existed real likelihood of bias
in the entire process of enquiry. Therefore, this Court has
absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt
to hold that the entire impugned proceedings are vitiated.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed,
setting aside the orders passed by the 3
rd respondent vide
proceedings No. SGZ:ZVD. 15/0-1372 dated 23.08.2001
as confirmed by the 2
nd respondent vide order dated 25-
01-2002 as confirmed by respondent no. 1 vide
proceedings No. AGM.AP.INSP.AUDIT.3744 dated
01.01.2003 and the petitioner is entitled for all the
consequential benefits. No order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
6
10. The Bank of Baroda filed Writ Appeal No. 1285 of 2017
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We find from the
website of the High Court that by an order of 13.09.2017 the
Division Bench suspended the order of the learned Single Judge.
Pending the Writ Appeal, the appellant superannuated on
31.12.2018. The Writ Appeal was disposed of on 30.03.2022 in the
following terms:
“Learned counsel for the appellants is fair enough in
stating before this Court that in the light of the retirement
of the employee in question, the present writ appeal be
disposed of leaving the question of law open.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving the
question of law open.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. On 10.07.2022, the appellant submitted a representation
claiming, restoration of pay since the penalty was set aside;
promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III from July, 2001 and monetary
benefits and also claimed notional promotion placing him as the last
candidate of each promotion exercise whereby the 2001 batchmates
of the appellant got their promotions. This was followed by a legal
7
notice of 16.08.2022 and thereafter on 01.02.2023, a contempt
petition wasfiled before the Division Bench against the respondents
herein seeking relief in terms of prayers made by him in the
representation.
12. The contemnors filed a reply on 20.07.2023 rebutting the
claim of the appellant and contended that they having released the
amount of Rs. 19,446/-, being the reduction in pay for three years,
necessary compliances had been made. They prayed for the
dismissal of the Contempt Petition. The Division Bench, as set out
earlier, closed the contempt case.
Contentions:
13. We have heard Mr. Abhijit Basu, learned senior advocate for
the appellant ably assisted by Ms. Tatini Basu, advocate and Ms.
Praveena Gautam, learned counsel, who effectively presented the
case for the respondent-contemnors.
8
14. Mr. Abhijit Basu, learned senior counsel for the appellant
contended that once the employee was exonerated with the
quashing of the penalty proceedings, the employee has to be
granted promotion by opening the sealed cover with retrospective
effect along with the monetary benefits. Learned senior counsel
contended that the appellant became entitled to promotion with
effect from July, 2001 and he is entitled to consequential benefits
from the said date. Learned senior counsel further contended that
the appellant’s promotion in 2012 and his subsequent inability to
get promoted to the higher scale is wholly irrelevant for the purpose
of the present case because of the appellant’s entitlement for
promotion to Scale-III with effect from July, 2001. Learned senior
counsel contended that even in the year 2012, the promotion
granted was without any pay hike in benefits. Learned senior
counsel contended that the promotion has to be made effective from
July, 2001 and it should remain effective till his superannuation and
all consequential benefits including monetary benefits should be
given by the respondents. Learned senior counsel relied on C.O.
9
Arumugam & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors., 1991 Supp (2) SCC
199 (para 5) and Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman &
Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109 (para 26).
15. Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the result of the appellant for promotion from Scale-II
to Scale-III, which was kept in abeyance due to the ongoing
disciplinary proceedings, was cancelled vide letter dated
30.08.2022, before the filing of the Writ Petition. In spite of the
same, the learned counsel contends that the appellant did not
challenge the cancellation of promotion dated 30.08.2002. Learned
counsel relied on Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008)
17 SCC 491 to contend that in the absence of pleadings no relief
can be granted.
16. Learned counsel Ms. Praveena Gautam further contends that
in the operative order of the learned Single Judge only
consequential benefits were given and not promotions or notional
promotion up to Scale-V were ordered. According to the learned
10
counsel, the only consequential benefits to which the appellant
became entitled, on the setting aside of the minor penalty imposed
on him, was the payment of the arrears in salary occasioned by the
said penalty and nothing more. According to the learned counsel,
consequential benefits would not include promotion with effect
from 28.07.2001 as the same stood cancelled as early as on
30.08.2002 and was not challenged.
17. Learned counsel further contends that while the appellant may
have a right to be considered for promotion, the appellant does not
have a right to promotion. According to the learned counsel, the
appellant was promoted from Scale-II to Scale-III in the year 2012
and was unsuccessful in the subsequent promotion exercises of
2016, 2017 and 2018 for promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV.
Learned counsel contends that the appellant has forgone his right to
challenge the cancellation by accepting the subsequent promotion
and appearing in the further promotion exercises. Learned counsel
vehemently opposes the plea made in the representation of the
11
appellant that he be placed as the last candidate of each promotion
exercise where his 2001 batchmates from Scale-II to Scale-III got
their promotions. Learned counsel relied on Chaduranga Kanthraj
URS and Anr. V. P. Ravi Kumar & Ors. (2024 INSC 957) to
contend that a court in contempt cannot go behind the main order
and would not enter into the questions which have not been dealt
with and decided in the judgment or order, the violation of which
is complained of by the applicant.
18. Learned counsel contends that no contempt is made out, since
two interpretations were possible and hence the action of the
respondents cannot be held as contumacious. Learned counsel
relies on the judgment of Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal
Satpathi & Ors., (2024 INSC 906) to contend that promotion
becomes effective on assumption of duties and since the appellant
has superannuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial
benefits. Learned counsel distinguishes the judgment in K.V.
Jankiraman (supra) to contend that in the absence of a challenge
12
to the cancellation order, the said judgment cannot be made
applicable.
19. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
20. The undisputed facts are that in contemplation of the
disciplinary enquiry, the appellant participated in the exercise for
promotion from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion
was kept in abeyance. It is very clear that he was promoted and the
promotion was kept in abeyance. The communication of the
cancellation reads as follows:
“We refer to your representation 22.04.02 requesting for
declaration of your promotion result from MMG/S III2000.
We have been informed,
“On referring the matter to our higher authorities, we are
advised that the promotion of Mr. K. Samba Murthy
from MMG/S II to MMG/S III which was kept in
abeyance has been treated as cancelled.”
13
21. It is also undisputed that after the penalty was imposed in the
disciplinary proceedings and confirmed right up to the Reviewing
Authority, the learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the
disciplinary proceedings and ordered that the appellant was entitled
to all consequential benefits.
22. Admittedly, thereafter, the Bank of Baroda which was the
employer reported to the Court hearing the Writ Appeal that in view
of the superannuation of the appellant, all that they wanted was that
the questions of the law to be left open. The net result was that the
learned Single Judge’s order remained intact and has since attained
finality. The further undisputed fact is that in the meantime,
pending the Writ Petition, the appellant was promoted in 2012 from
Scale-II to Scale-III and he assumed the promoted post.
23. In this background, the only question that arises in these
proceedings is: Ought not the respondents have granted the benefit
of promotion from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect
from 28.07.2001 with all monetary benefits to the appellant.
14
24. Admittedly, the only compliance made by the respondents
was to pay the amount of Rs. 19,446/- being the reduction in pay
for three years. The learned Single Judge set aside the disciplinary
proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was not at fault. A
junior officer, who was competing for promotion with the
appellant, was made the enquiry officer and a clear case of
likelihood of bias was made out by the appellant and it was
accepted by the learned Single Judge. The employer Bank did not
even contest this position before the Division Bench and merely
wanted the question of law to be left open. The appellant was not
at fault for the defect in the enquiry. No fresh enquiry was initiated
nor was any liberty sought from the Division Bench.
25. In this scenario, are we to deny the appellant the benefit of
promotion from 28.07.2001 when he was ordered to be promoted
but which order was kept in abeyance and which was cancelled only
because of the result of the enquiry?
15
26. We think not. That will be very unfair and we are not prepared
to put our imprimatur on such an interpretation. We are also not
impressed with the submissions of Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned
counsel that there were no pleadings about the illegality of the
cancellation order and no prayer for setting aside the order of
cancellation was made. On the facts of this case, we find that such
relief will be encompassed in the phrase “consequential benefits”
which the learned Single Judge clearly granted. In any event, ends
of justice cannot be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities.
27. We also do not find the judgment in Dr. Amal Satpathi
(supra) to be applicable. Unlike in the present case, the result of the
promotion was not kept in abeyance in that case. There, before the
approval for promotion could be received to the post of Chief
Scientific Officer, the incumbent had superannuated. In this case,
in 2012, the appellant assumed the promoted post. The only
question was about giving him the benefit from 28.07.2001, when
he was entitled. The argument that granting relief to the appellant
would tantamount to travelling beyond the main order, does not
16
carry weight insofar as granting the appellant promotion from
Scale-II to Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001.
28. Merely paying him Rs. 19,446/-, which admittedly is the
reduced pay for three years, cannot amount to compliance with the
order of the learned Single Judge. The objection to the
maintainability of the Contempt Petition before the Division Bench
is also a non-starter. It is a hyper-technical argument and in any
event the Division Bench did not dismiss the Contempt Petition on
maintainability.
29. The respondent-authoritiesshould have on their own extended
the benefit once the writ appeal was disposed of and the order of
the learned Single Judge stood affirmed. The learned Single Judge,
as early as on 20.07.2017, allowed the writ petition filed by the
appellant in 2008, namely, Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2008. The writ
appeal was also disposed of on 30.03.2022 and the interim order
stood vacated. The appellant has been running from pillar to post,
for the last two decades. On 10.07.2022, when he sought
17
compliance, all that the respondent-authorities did was to pay him
a “princely” sum of Rs. 19,446/-, which was the reduced pay for
the three years. Alas, even after succeeding in a long drawn and
hard-fought legal battle the appellant was left only with a pyrrhic
victory.
30. Insofar as promotion with effect from 28.07.2001 for the post
of Manager Grade-III is concerned, we order that the appellant
should be granted the same with all monetary benefits since the
fundamental defect in the enquiry was due to no fault of the
appellant. The defect was also accepted by the Bank when they did
not press the appeal. The benefit of promotion to Manager GradeIII from 28.07.2001 is covered in the expression “consequential
benefits” as ordered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 20.07.2017 in Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2008. We say so on
the facts of the present case.
31. There is one more additional aspect. It is not clear from the
record as to on what ground the appellant was denied promotion in
18
2016, 2017 and 2018 exercises, for scales upward of Manager
Scale-III. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is dated
20.07.2017. We also find that by an order of 13.09.2017, the
Division Bench suspended the order of the learned Single Judge.
The Division Bench disposed of the matter on 30.03.2022. We
cannot venture into that arena while adjudicating the present
Contempt Petition hence. We reserve liberty to the appellant to
resort to such remedies as may be available to him in law insofar as
his claim of denial for further promotions from upwards of
Management Grade-III is concerned. We order that, in the event of
any proceedings being initiated, all questions may be permitted to
be raised by the parties which will be decided on their own merits.
We also direct that such proceedings should not be rejected on the
grounds of limitation or laches.
32. We are, for the present, not inclined to proceed against the
respondents for action in contempt. We grant an opportunity to
them to pass orders within four weeks from today remedy the
situation by granting promotion to the appellant from Manager
19
Scale-II to Scale-III from 28.07.2001 and grant him all monetary
benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the
respective dates the monetary benefits fell due.
33. With the above observations, the Appeal is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Contempt Case
No. 311 of 2023 is set aside. Parties will act as per the directions in
this judgment. No order as to costs.
………........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
……….........................J.
[K. V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi;
27th January, 2025.
