Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt.Col.K.B.L. Sharma vs Lt.General G.S.Nayar on 7 March, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P.No.337 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : March 07, 2012
Lt.Col.K.B.L. Sharma .....Petitioner
versus
Lt.General G.S.Nayar .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Ram Chander, Advocate, for the respondent.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was awarded recordable severe displeasure vide order dated 20.10.1987. The said punishment order was quashed by this Court in a writ petition and the appeal preferred by the Union of India was also dismissed. The petitioner had earlier filed a statutory complaint also against his supersession which was not decided despite a legal notice served on his behalf. The inaction of the respondent prompted the petitioner to approach this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.6955 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.5.2007 with a direction to decide his legal notice within a period of six months. The said legal notice, according to the petitioner was not decided, hence the present contempt petition was filed.
COCP No.337 of 2008 [2]
In his reply-affidavit, the respondent has placed on record a communication dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure R-1) addressed to the counsel for the petitioner and since in the reply-affidavit as well as during the course of hearing, the above stated communication is claimed to be the decision on the statutory complaint of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduced the same in extenso:-
"2. Your client had earlier served the legal notices on three different occasions through Lt.Col. VS Sehjpal, Advocate bearing No.VSS/NC/KBL/1 dated 30th September, 1992 and subsequently through Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate, dated 23 Feb.2006 addressed to Defence Secretary and the Chief of the Army Staff. The same were replied vide this office letter No.36500/Misc./ CWP/MS Legal dated 4 Nov. 1992 and subsequently, vide even No.dated 8 March 2006 respectively. The copy of the legal notice and our reply dated 4 Nov. 1992 have also been fwd to Mr.Sukant Gupta, Adv. vide our letter No.36500/Misc./CWP/MS Legal dated 8th March, 2006. Further, this fact was also intimated to you vide our letter No.36500/Misc/CWP/MS Legal dated 20 Sept. 2006 (copy enclosed).
3. Notwithstanding the same, it is stated that your client was awarded 'Severe Displeasure' (recordable) on 20 Oct 1987 while he was holding the rank of Lt. Col (TS). Your client was considered for promotion to the rank of Lt.Col by Selection as under:-
Sr.No. Considered as Year Result
(a) Fresh Case (1961 Batch) Oct 1977 Unfit
(b) First Review Dec 1978 Unfit
(c) Final Review Oct 1979 Unfit
4. Thus, your client was given all the due
considerations much before the award of 'Severe Displeasure' and he was finally superseded for further promotions by Selection before the said award. Hence, your contention that your client is entitled for further promotions subsequent to setting aside the award of 'Severe Displeasure' (Recordable) by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court lack merit and substance. Your client was considered for promotion on his turn alongwith his batch and was not promoted due COCP No.337 of 2008 [3] to his overall profile and merit within the batch.
5. Thus the respondents have fully complied with the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 9 Jan 1992 in letter and sprit...."
The respondent, however, insists that the direction to decide the legal notice, issued by this Court, has been complied with vide communication dated 24.12.2007 though the said communication nowhere deals with the claim of the petitioner regarding promotion after the adverse material comprising severe displeasure was quashed by this Court. Similarly, the aforesaid communication nowhere discloses as to when and how the petitioner's claim for promotion was reviewed as per Regulation 69 of the Rules referred to in the legal notice. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to clarify that let the above-stated communication dated 24.12.2007 be treated as an 'order' rejecting the petitioner's statutory complaint but at the risk and responsibility of the respondent, with further liberty to the petitioner to impugn the same before an appropriate forum, if so advised. Since this contempt petition is disposed of today, the respondent shall not take the plea of limitation, delay or laches against challenge to the aforementioned communication dated 24.12.2007.
Ordered accordingly.
Rule discharged.
March 07, 2012 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE