- (1.) D. V. Sharma, J. The instant appeal has been preferred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the judgment and order dated 9th January 2006 passed by Hon'ble the Contempt Judge rejecting the defence raised by the appellants and directing the appellants to appear in Court for framing of charges.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is as under: Rajiv Gupta was appointed as Probationary/trainee Officer in the Vijaya Bank Ltd. on 6th of September, 1976; his services were confirmed on the said post. Admittedly, there were no service rules at the time of his recruitment. THEreafter the Bank was nationalised and service rules were framed and given effect w. e. f. 1st of January, 1983 and in the meantime a seniority list of the officers of Vijaya Bank was circulated on 10th June, 1989 in which his name was placed at serial No. 299. THE criteria for conferring the seniority was the date of confirmation i. e. by excluding the probationary period of one year of service, THE grievance of Rajiv Gupta (respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal) was that for promotees, seniority was accorded from the initial date of their promotion/training. It has also been submitted that after nationalization of bank, Vijaya Bank Officers Service Reguations, 1982 which came into force on 1st of January, 1983 does not distinguish the period of training from the period of probation. Consequently, it was for the Bank to add any condition. Thus the seniority of respondent No. 1 should be counted from 6. 1. 1976 and not from 6. 9. 1977. It is further contended that on the basis of length of service (during the periord there was no rule in existence) the date of initial appointment should be the basis for counting of seniority. Thus it would be the golden rule to determine the seniority on the basis of length of service. Aggrieved by the order of Bank, writ petition bearing No. 5144 of 1984 was filed with the following reliefs: "it is most respectfully prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the seniority lists dated 30. 6. 1981 and 25. 9. 1984, contained in Annexure 4 and 6 alongwith the promotion policy declared vice order dated 28. 8. 1984 in so far as it excludes the period of probation towards computation of seniority and to quash Regulation 18 (2) as reproduced in para-14 in so far as it allowed seniority with effect from the date of appointment in that grade or scale with a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to count petitioner's service with effect from 6. 9. 1976 to 5. 9. 1977 towards his seniority and further commanding the Bank to act accordingly. " In the petition the petitioner challenged the policy decision dated 28. 8. 1984 through which the period of probation towards computation of seniority was excluded. The above writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 2. 12. 1994. Thereafter one modification application was also moved on which this Court passed an order clarifying the earlier judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "the writ petition is allowed and a mandamus is issued directing the respondents to treat the training period of petitioner towards his service with the Bank and to fix his seniority considering his appointment to the service of the Bank with effect from 6. 9. 1976. "
(3.) IT is further clarified that the petitioner of the above writ petition, now respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal, approached the Bank and the Bank after considering the totality of the circumstances sent a letter referring that the judgment and order dated 2. 12. 1994 and 1. 9. 1995 have already been complied with. Relevant portion of the letter is extracted below: "since the bank has considered you for promotion during the year 1984 onwards, claim made by you to grant notional promotion upto MMG Scale IV does not hold good as the promotion in officers cadre in our bank is based on selection/assessment of comparative merit of all eligible candidates who participate in promotion process and not an automatic one. We express our inability to accede to your request. Please note that our consideration of your certain requests in pursuance of the order dated 2. 12. 1994 and 1. 9. 1995, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the order dated 15. 4. 1996 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is in full and final settlement of your claim on the bank. " The submission of the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court and on the basis of regulations that was taken into consideration for adjudging the issue has already been referred to. In this context it is relevant to quote that one Criminal Misc. Case No. 1736 (C) of 1996, Rajiv Gupta v. Sri T. S. Raghwan and others was filed. The learned Single Judge after considering the pros and cons of the whole issue on 9. 1. 2006 passed the following order: "from the material on record, prima facie, a case is made out to proceed against the opposite parties for framing of charges. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 1 to 6 are directed to appear in this Court on 9th of February, 2006 for framing of charges. ";