1997 INSC 0559
                                            Kashinath Kher and Others

                                                           Vs

                                        Dinesh Kumar Bhagat and Others

                                 Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 207-208 of 1997

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      02.05.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. These contempt petitions have been filed for non-compliance of the judgment of this Court in
State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher [(1996) 8 SCC 762 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1117]. The substratum
of the complaint of the petitioners is that despite specific directions given and positive observations
made in the judgment, the respondents have not implemented the judgment in its true spirit and
purport. On the 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,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has stated that for the purpose of promotion
from MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II and so on, as per the norms, five years' confidential reports
and six years' appraisal reports are necessarily to be taken into consideration. Recording the CRs
after a lapse of 15 years would be an impossible task since the officers who had observed the
conduct of the officers to be promoted would either have retired or would not be available. In that
backdrop, he had advised the contemners to go by the existing reports and to consider them in
accordance with the Rules for the promotion; therefore, they have not disregarded the directions of
this Court.

2. It is seen from the judgment that specific and unequivocal directions have been given as to how
and by whom CRs are to be written. They relate to two items. One is that the respondents should
identify such of the officers to whom opportunity to serve in the line assignment and also in
rural/semi-urban services was given but they did not avail of the same and to eliminate such of the
officers who have not availed of the opportunity, they shall be omitted from the list; and such
officers who availed of the opportunity but could not complete the assignment but for no fault of
theirs and those who have completed the line assignment should be included in Group A and their
cases should be further considered for further promotion in accordance with the Rules. In the
affidavit filed by Mr. S.S. Partoti, AGM (Personnel & HRD), he has stated that first part of the
direction had been complied with and for the compliance of the second part of the directions, they
came forward with the same justification in a 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 the counsel and on the faith of that, they have come to that
understanding. When put a question, Shri Shanti Bhushan has taken responsibility on himself for the
advice and stated that he understood the judgment of this Court in a manner which is not
inconsistent with its letter and spirit. Therefore, the respondents have acted upon it.

3. In view of the personal responsibility taken by Shri Shanti Bhushan, his standing at the bar and
his fairness and candid admission, we accept his statement. We do not think that the officers have
wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the implementation of the orders of the Court. Accordingly, three
months' time is now given to the respondents to do the exercise and implement the judgment in its
full spirit.

4. The contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed.