HC quashes contempt order against IAS officer in promotion case

Just over a month after a single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court asserted that a prima facie case for contempt proceedings was made out against IAS officer TVSN Prasad and other officials, a Division Bench now quashed and set aside that order.

The single Judge vide the impugned order dated September 13 had adjourned the case for September 24 for the “purpose of consideration upon framing of charges” against Prasad and others. The matter pertains to alleged delay in conducting a promotion examination for kanungos aspiring to become naib tehsildars.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma found that the impugned order had not adequately considered extenuating factors related to procedural and administrative transitions.

The Bench asserted that the high court initially disposed of a petition on December 2, 2023, with a direction to hold promotion examination within two months. Respondent Resham Singh subsequently filed a petition, alleging willful non-compliance of the order.

The Bench asserted that the dispute in the writ petition centered on the appellants’’ failure to conduct department examinations, which would have enabled the respondent to participate and, upon passing, qualify for promotion from kanungo to naib tehsildar. The case was not decided on merit, but was disposed of based on instructions conveyed by a law officer on holding the examination within two months.

Accordingly, the court issued a clear directive on conducting the examination within the timeframe promised by the officer. The instructions were conveyed to the Additional Advocate-General by an inspector, Director of Land Records, Panchkula, Haryana.

The Bench observed that valid authorisation was not granted to the officials concerned. The instructions received by the inspector were not provided by the head of the department. As such, he was not authorised to communicate the instructions to the Additional Advocate-General. He, too, lacked the authority to present the instructions to the court without verifying the source as originating from the departmental head.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was also told that the Director of Land Records received the court’’s order dated January 1. The department initially planned to conduct the department exam from December 11 to December 15, 2023. But the matter could not proceed as the government resolved to shift exam responsibility to the Central Committee of Examinations under the Chief Secretary’’s control instead of the Director of Land Records. The exam was subsequently rescheduled due to the parliamentary elections, which required staff deployment. Ultimately, the exam was conducted, fulfilling the requirements of the December 2023 order.

The court emphasised that the directions aiming to punish the contemnor were “naturally incidental to or inextricably connected with the order of punishing for contempt.” It concluded that such directions disregarded the legitimate extenuating circumstances. If the impugned order were not quashed, the contemnor, upon facing charges, would be unjustly subjected to harassment.