http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KASHINATH KHER & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:   THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 1997 Present:        Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy        Hon,ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa Dushyant Dave,Sr.Adv., Ms.  Nisha  Bagachi  and  Ms.Indu Malhotra, Advs.with him for the petitioners Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv.,  R.N. Keshwani, Adv.with him for the Respondent Nos.1-3 R.F. Nariman, Sr.Adv., R.V. Rangam, K.Samdani, R.N.Keshwani, A.V. Rangam  and A.  Ranganadhan, Advs. with  him  for the Respondent No.4      The following order of thecourt was delivered:  O R D E R      These contempt  petitionshave  been  filed  fornon- compliance of  the judgment  ofthis  court in state Bank of India & Ors. v.  Kashinath Kher  & Ors. [(1996) 8 SCC 762]. The substratumof thepetitioners is that despite specific directions given  and  positive observations  made  in the Judgment, the  respondents havenot implementedthe judgment in itstrue spirit  and purport.   Onthe other hand,they have put  up the  same interpretation of the  provisions set up prior  to the  judgment as  an excuse  in promoting the officers, violating  the judgment.    Shri  Shanti  Bhushan, learnedsenior  counsel  appearing  for  therespondents, learnedseniorcounselappearing  for the  respondents, has stated for  thepurpose of promotion from MMG Scale IIII to MMG Scale  II and  so on,  as per  thenorms,five  years’ confidential reports  and six  years’ appraisal reports are necessarily tobe taken into consideration,  Recording the C.Rs.  after a lapse of15 years would be an impossibletask since the  officers who had observed  the conduct   of the officers to  bepromoted  wouldeither have retired or would not beavailable.   Inthat   backdrop.  he had advised the contemners to  go by  the existing  reports and to consider them  in  accordance  with  the Rulesfor  the  promotion; therefore, theyhave not disregarded the directions  ofthis court.      It is   seen  from  the  judgment that  specific and unequivocal directions have  been given  as to  how and by whom C.Rs.  areto  be written.  They relate to  two items.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

One isthat the  respondents should  identify such  of the officers whom  opportunity to line assignment of rural/semi- urban serviceswas given but they did not avail of thesame and toeliminate suchof the officerswho have nor availed of the opportunity but could not  contemplate assignment but for no fault oftheirs and those who have completed theline assignment should  be includedin Group  A and their cases shouldbe  further  considered for  further  promotion  in accordance with the Rules.  Inthe  affidavit filed  by Mr. S.S. Partoti,  AGM (  Personal &  HRD),he  hasstatedthat first part  of the  direction had been compliedwith and for the complianceof thesecond part  ofthe directions,they came forward  with thesame justification  ina  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 of thecounseland  onthe  faith of  that, question,Shri Shanti Bhushanhas taken responsibility on himself  for the advice and  stated that he understoodthe judgment ofthis court in  a manner which is notinconsistent with its letter spirit. Therefore, therespondents  have actedupon it.      Inview  of the  personal responsibility  taken byShri Shanti Bhushan,his standing atthe barand hisfairness and candid admission,  we accept  his statement. Wedo not think that the  officers have wilfully or  deliberately disobeyed the implementation  of the orders of the Court.Accordingly, three month’s time is now givento the respondents to do the exercise and implement the judgment in its fullspirit.      The Contempt Petitions areaccordingly dismissed.