NASIMUDDIN ANSARI v. SATISH SINGH IRSME

Delhi High Court · 07 May 2026 · 2026:DHC:4184

Sachin Datta, J.

CONT.CAS(C) 1285/2022

2026:DHC:4184

administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed reconsideration of the petitioner's promotion and NFU entitlements, setting aside cryptic rejection of representations and warning against wilful disobedience of court orders.

Full Text

CONT.CAS(C) 1285/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.05.2026

CONT.CAS(C) 1285/2022
NASIMUDDIN ANSARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tapas Das, Adv.

VERSUS

SATISH SINGH IRSME .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC, Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Ms. Usha Jamnal and
Ms. Tanya, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 11767/2016. The said order reads as under:

2. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority qua the petitioner was set aside, and a fresh order was directed to be passed.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that an order dated 12.12.2019 came to be issued thereafter. The same has been filed as Annexure P[2] to the present petition and reads as under:

4. As can be seen from the aforesaid order, the same records the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to communicate the “Displeasure of the Government” to be effective from 11.03.2003, i.e., the date on which a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of two years had earlier been imposed on him. The said order also records that the consequential benefits on account of the said decision shall be given to the petitioner.

5. It transpires, during the course of the hearing, that substantial benefits have been given to the petitioner, inter alia, promotion from AEE(E&M) to EE(E&M) with effect from the year 2000.

6. The only controversy is as regards the following aspects:

(i) The petitioner’s entitlement to promotion from EE (E&M) to

(ii) A proposal to grant NFU to the petitioner in the Grade Pay of

7. The respondent concedes the petitioner’s entitlement to the above. The controversy is confined to the date with effect from which the aforesaid is to be given to the petitioner.

8. During the course of the hearing, it transpires that the petitioner’s case for promotion from EE(E&M) to SE(E&M) was considered by the Review DPC held in the year 2008-09. However, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion since a disciplinary inquiry was pending against the petitioner.

9. It transpires from Annexure R[4] to the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondent/Union of India that the factual position in this regard has been clarified in an order passed by the UPSC. The same reads as under:

10. It can be seen from the above that the DPCs for the post of SE(E&M) in BRO for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 to 2016-17, and 2019 were held in the office of the Commission on 13.1.2015, 23.12.2016/01.05.2018 and 13.3.2020, respectively.

11. The petitioner was denied Vigilance clearance for consideration in all these vacancy years. Accordingly, the aforesaid order passed by the UPSC concludes as under:

“7. In view of the Above, the denial of promotion to Mohd Nisimuddin for the vacancy years 2014-15, 2015-16 to 2016-17 and 2019 on the plea that a Writ Petition was pending against the officer till 13.01.2015 and that vigilance status of the officer as on date is denied due to chargesheet issued on 18.10.2024 is not on order.”

12. As such, the position that emerges is that the denial of promotion to the petitioner for the vacancy year 2014-15 was not in order.

11,956 characters total

13. In the circumstances, the petitioner is required to be considered for promotion to the post of SE(E&M) against the aforesaid vacancy year.

14. In the circumstances, it is directed that a Review DPC be held for the said purpose and for granting promotion to the petitioner from the requisite date, in terms of the aforesaid order passed by the UPSC. Needless to say, all consequential financial benefits shall also be granted to the petitioner, as may be mandated, based upon the Review DPC.

15. The next issue is as regards the grant of NFU to the petitioner. Although NFU has already been granted to the petitioner with effect from 2013, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the same with effect from 01.04.2006.

16. It transpires, during the course of the hearing, that a Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) considered the matter for grant of NFU to the petitioner and concluded that, for the panel year 2006-07, the petitioner was unfit due to a below benchmark ACR for the period from 18.09.2000 to 31.03.2001.

17. The Minutes of the DSC, along with the annexures thereto, have been handed over during the course of the hearing, recording the aforesaid position.

18. It also transpires that the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 3333 of 2024 assailing the ACRs for the period from 18.09.2000 to 31.03.2001. The Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order dated 05.03.2024 in the said writ petition:

19. During the course of the present proceedings, the petitioner handed over a copy of the pleadings of W.P.(C) 3333/2024, in which the aforesaid order came to be passed. A perusal of the same indicates that the petitioner had made a representation dated 13.01.2022 against the aforesaid ACRs, and the said representation was disposed of vide communication dated 21.02.2022, in the following manner:

20. It is evident that the petitioner’s representation was disposed of in a completely cryptic manner, without dealing with the contentions of the petitioner. The same cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.

21. The petitioner’s challenge to the aforesaid communication dated 21.02.2022, is predicated purely on legal grounds. The same are being considered in these proceedings in line with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, vide the aforesaid order dated 05.03.2024. Considering that this aspect is in a purely legal compass, the requirement for any elaborate factual inquiry/pleadings, is obviated.

22. Reference is apposite to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sant Kumar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., 2014:DHC:3718-DB. It has been observed as under:

“12. We also find that there was a delay of two years in communicating the said ACRs to the petitioner for which the respondents have given no cogent reason. Not only this, the representation made by the petitioner vide his representation dated 23.10.10 was rejected by the Competent Authority by passing a very cryptic and non-speaking order, without giving any regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation. There is no justification for said order which was passed on a representation by an officer seeking upgradation of his ACRs. Such a cryptic order is in gross violation of sub para (vi) of para 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 14th May, 2009, which mandates that the Competent Authority shall decide the representation objectively, based on the material placed before him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. The said guideline is reproduced as under:- “2. (vi) The competent authority for considering adverse remarks under the existing instructions may consider the representation, if necessary, in consultation with the reporting and / or reviewing officer and shall decide the matter objectively based on the material placed before him within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the representation.”

23. In Ravi Balina vs. Union of India And Ors., 2024:DHC:6523-DB, a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:

“8. In the light of this position when it is evident that the grading of ‘6’ awarded to the petitioner in the aforesaid APAR has to be treated as ‘very good’, we may now deal with his plea that the adverse remarks endorsed in the APAR are inconsistent with the grading awarded to him. Having given our thoughtful consideration to this plea of the petitioner, we find that he is correct in urging that the grading and the pen picture remarks in his aforesaid APAR for the period between 01.04.2010 to 13.11.2010, are absolutely inconsistent. The petitioner is, therefore, correct in urging that his Reporting and Reviewing Officers have endorsed the APAR without appreciating the fact that there was an inconsistency in the recording of the APAR. We are, therefore, of the view that the APAR is liable to be set aside on the ground of inconsistency itself. It was the duty of the petitioner’s Reporting Officers to ensure that the remarks and grading awarded to him are in

consonance with each other.”

24. In the present case as well, a perusal of the relevant ACR (which has been handed over in Court, the same being appended to the aforesaid W.P.(C) No. 3333/2024) reveals a clear dichotomy/inconsistency between the grading of the petitioner and the pen-picture remarks contained therein. For this reason as well, the rejection of the petitioner’s representation by way of a cryptic order without dealing with the contentions made by the petitioner in his representation, does not withstand legal scrutiny.

25. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and upon an overall consideration, the denial of NFU to the petitioner for the panel year 2006- 07, based purely on ACR for the period from 18.09.2000 to 31.03.2001, is unjustified.

26. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass an appropriate order, as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted NFU for the year 2006-07. The said exercise shall be undertaken without taking into account the ACR for the period from 18.09.2000 to 31.03.2001. If there is no other impediment to granting NFU to the petitioner w.e.f. 2006-07, the same shall be accordingly, granted. All consequential benefits/financial entitlement shall be duly worked out and paid to the petitioner.

27. There remains one other aspect, which is that in respect of certain payments due to the petitioner, certain TDS has been deducted, but the corresponding amount/s have not been released to the petitioner. The petitioner shall make a representation to the respondent regarding this aspect. The consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled pursuant to such notional promotion shall be duly paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from today.

28. The above directions have been issued to ensure that there is no disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 11767/2016. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, (2008) 14 SCC 115 also mandates and makes it incumbent on this Court to issue appropriate consequential directions. The operative directions therein are as under:

“50. It is by now well settled under the Act and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India that if it is alleged before this Court that a person has wilfully violated its order it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found to be true it can punish the offenders for having committed “civil contempt” and if need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercising its power under the Act, it is not open to the Court to pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of Court. There is no wilful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order.”

29. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is made clear that failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the aforesaid directions, would be construed as wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment/order dated 20.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 11767/2016.

30. In such eventuality, this Court shall be constrained to take appropriate action against the respondent for wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

31. List for reporting compliance on 29.09.2026. MAY 7, 2026/at/sv SACHIN DATTA, J

NASIMUDDIN ANSARI v. SATISH SINGH IRSME

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation