Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1348 (JHR)

Brigadier Rakesh Sharma v. Vijay Singh

2009-10-29

N.N.TIWARI

body2009
Order This contempt proceeding has been initiated on the grievance of the petitioner that the opposite parties have not obeyed and complied with the order dated 10th December, 2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5756 of 2007. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared and filed their show cause reply. It has been stated, inter alia, that in compliance of the order of this Court the petitioner's representation has been disposed of by a reasoned order dated 13th March, 2009 after considering the petitioner's representation point-wise. They have stated that delay was due to movement of file in official process and was not intentional. The said opposite parties have also tendered unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Court. 3. When this case was taken up earlier, this Court had expressed its dissatisfaction on the terms of the order passed by the opposite parties in purported compliance of the order of this Court, The petitioner's representation seems to be not properly considered, point-wise. In order to satisfy this Court that the concerned authority has covered all the points raised in the petitioner's representation in the said order, the opposite parties filed a supplementary affidavit, giving some details. 4. When this case is taken up today, the petitioner appeared in person and submitted that the same is a mere eye-wash to mislead this Court and, in fact, the petitioner's points raised in his representation has not been considered and there has been flagrant violation of the order of this Court. He claimed that the opposite parties themselves graded him as the best officer and selected for foreign assignment, but in the order the opposite parties have tried to show that he is inferior to the officers of his batch who have been given promotion to the rank of Major General. The order passed by the opposite parties does not disclose the detail of comparative superiority of those who have been given higher rank, ignoring the petitioner. He submitted that the opposite parties have not passed the order bone fidely and in accordance with the direction of this Court. 5. I perused the show cause reply and heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. He submitted that the opposite parties have not passed the order bone fidely and in accordance with the direction of this Court. 5. I perused the show cause reply and heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. I find that the opposite parties have not given comparative details of the officers to demonstrate that the officers, who were given promotion, were more suitable or superior to the petitioner. The opposite parties instead of recording speaking reasons in the order, as directed by this Court, have passed a laconic and cryptic order. Some explanation and details have been furnished by them in the supplementary affidavit but the same is not a substitute of the order. When this was pointed out to the counsel for the opposite parties, he realized the same and prayed for three weeks time to pass a fresh order dealing with the points raised in the petitioner's representation, in accordance with terms of the order of this Court. 6. In view of the said prayer of learned counsel for the opposite parties and also considering that the opposite parties have tendered unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Court, the opposite parties are given an opportunity to pass a fresh speaking order in compliance of the order dated 10th December, 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5756 of 2007 within three weeks from the date of receipt/production' of a copy of this order. 7. With the said direction, this case is disposed of.