Jammu, Sep 24: In C.P./497/2026 (JAMMU) In O.A./299/2026 titled SANJAY SHARMA Vs ASHWANI KUMAR, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR after hearing CAT ordered as under:-
1. Statement of facts filed by learned D.A.G. on behalf of Respondent No. 1 shows that, since, on account of vigilance clearance in favour of the petitioner is pending on part of General Administration Department/Anti Corruption Bureau, therefore, the case/representation of the petitioner has been submitted to the General Administration Department for consideration, as per rules.
2. Learned D.A.G. appearing for Respondent No. 1 has stated that a panel of eligible I/c Superintending Engineers including the petitioner was submitted to the GAD for its placement before the Establishment cum Selection Committee for selection of suitable candidates against the vacant post of Chief Engineers, but the ECSC as per the minutes of meeting held on 23.07.2026 did not consider the name of the petitioner.
3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per final order of this Tribunal dated 04.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 299 of 2026, the respondents were directed to place the case of the petitioner for his placement as I/c Chief Engineer before the Establishment cum Selection Committee within a period of one week and thereafter, accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner for the post of I/c Chief Engineer, without insisting for vigilance clearance from GAD/ACB.
4. It is further submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that Respondent No. 2 is sitting over the matter, due to which implementation of order of this Tribunal has not been made, besides, the prayer of the respondents herein for interim relief with regard to stay of operation of the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by this Tribunal has been declined by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.08.2026 in Writ Petition No. 2549 of 2026 titled UT of J&K and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma.
5. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that petitioner who has remained an outstanding officer throughout his service career is going to retire on 30th of this month without reaping the fruit of the final order of this Tribunal dated 04.06.2026.
6. Once an order has been passed by this Tribunal, it is binding and compliance is not optional. Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes Contempt of Court.
7. This Tribunal, therefore, is constrained to record that the Respondent No. 2 has wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order passed by this Tribunal, by not forwarding the claim of the petitioner, for the post of I/c Chief Engineer without insisting for vigilance clearance from GAD/ACB. The Act of Respondent No. 2 shows a clear defiance of the order of this Tribunal, which cannot be allowed and he must be held accountable for his conduct.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel and learned D.A.G., it is a fit case, where proceedings are required to be initiated against Respondent No. 2 under C.A.T. (Contempt of Courts) Act, 1992. However, before framing robkar against Respondent No. 2, we direct Respondent No. 2 to appear before this Tribunal through virtual mode on the next date of hearing at 01:00 PM with his explanation, failing which coercive steps for securing his presence would be resorted to.
9. List on 25.09.2026.
10. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G. for information and compliance.
Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J)
|