Bombay High Court
G S RathoreversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The contempt petitions are dismissed as the grievance pertains to the merits of the Tribunal’s order, not to contempt.
Summary
The High Court considered two contempt petitions filed by G.S. Rathore against the Union of India after the Central Administrative Tribunal ordered the expungement of adverse remarks in the petitioner’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and directed that the ACRs be rewritten. The Tribunal’s order had been stayed earlier but later sustained by the Court, and the Union complied by issuing a letter and having the ACRs rewritten, albeit by different officers who had taken over after the original officers left service. The petitioner contended that the rewritten ACRs were invalid because they were prepared by officers not originally designated to do so. The Court held that such a grievance relates to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision and must be pursued before the Tribunal, not in contempt proceedings. Consequently, both contempt petitions were disposed of without any finding of contempt.
Issues considered
- Whether the Union of India’s compliance with the Tribunal’s order, albeit by different officers, amounts to contempt of court.
- Whether a grievance regarding the validity of rewritten ACRs can be entertained in contempt proceedings.
Subjects
- contempt
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Annual Confidential Report
- expungement
- administrative law
- jurisdiction
- merits vs contempt
Judgment
Digitally
signed by 908&909.CP-6-2026.odt
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.08.12
15:02:36
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(908) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 OF 2026
AND
(909) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2026
G.S. Rathore ….Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India ….Respondent
----
Mr. A.S. Rao i/b. Mr. R.V. Dighe for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Ms. Smita Thakur i/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent in both
Petitions.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. We have perused the order of the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, which was the subject matter of challenge
in the Writ Petitions. There is no dispute that the Tribunal directed
expungement of the adverse remarks against the Petitioner with
reference to two periods, that were considered for writing the ACRs.
There is also no dispute that the Tribunal directed that the
Petitioner’s performance should be reviewed and the ACRs should
be rewritten. It is equally undisputed that, earlier the judgment of
the Tribunal was stayed by this Court and by a judgment dated
23rd September, 2024, both the Writ Petitions Nos.3456 of 2009 and
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 3
908&909.CP-6-2026.odt
3457 of 2009, filed by the Union of India and others, were
dismissed by this Court. As such, the conclusions of the Tribunal
that the adverse ACRs should be expunged and fresh ACRs should
be rewritten, were sustained by this Court.
2. The learned Advocate for the original Petitioner, UoI,
has tendered a letter dated 19th December 2025, thereby complying
with the directions of the Tribunal, which were sustained by this
Court. The said letter, along with the order dated11 th December,
2025 (7 pages), is taken on record and collectively marked as ‘X’ for
identification.
3. It is crystal clear that the order ‘X’ has been served
upon the Petitioner by Speed Post A.D. The original Petitioner has
the acknowledgment of receipt. The adverse remarks have been
expunged. The ACRs have been rewritten.
4. The grievance of the original Appellant before the
Tribunal and the Contempt Petitioner before us, is that the
authorities who were required to rewrite the ACRs were no longer in
service after the judgment of this Court. Consequently, other officers
have rewritten the ACRs based on the available records.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 3
908&909.CP-6-2026.odt
5. We find that the above grievance of the Contempt
Petitioner could be considered only if the Petitioner challenges the
rewritten ACRs by approaching the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal. These contentions on the merits of the decision arrived at
by the authorities cannot be gone into in Contempt proceedings.
6. In view of the above, both the Contempt Petitions are
disposed off.
7. Needless to state that if the Petitioner decides to
approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, against the rewritten
ACRs, all contentions are kept open.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 3
Checking your session…