K. SAMBA MOORTHYversusSANJIV CHADHA & ORS.

                 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 998 : 2025 INSC 110

                           K. Samba Moorthy
                                   v.
                          Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2025)
                              27 January 2025
              [B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether respondents should have granted the benefit of promotion
       from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001
       with all monetary benefits to the appellant.

                                 Headnotes†
       Service Law – Benefit of promotion – Monetary benefits –
       A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant – The
       appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from MMG/
       S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance –
       After a detailed enquiry, a minor penalty of reduction in pay
       for 3 years was imposed on appellant – Promotion that was
       kept in abeyance stood cancelled – Writ Petition – Pending
       writ petition, in the year 2012, the appellant was promoted from
       Scale-II to Scale-III – The Single judge of the High Court set
       aside the disciplinary proceedings and ordered that appellant
       was entitled to all consequential benefits – In writ appeal,
       since appellant retired, only question of law was left open –
       Appellant submitted a representation claiming, restoration
       of pay since the penalty was set aside and promotion from
       Scale-II to Scale-III from July, 2001 and monetary benefits –
       Contempt petition filed against respondents-contemnors – The
       contemnors replied that they have released the amount of
       Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay for 3 years:
       Held: Admittedly, the only compliance made by the respondents
       was to pay the amount of Rs.19,446/- being the reduction in pay
       for three years – The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the
       disciplinary proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was



* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            999

               K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.


     not at fault – A junior officer, who was competing for promotion
     with the appellant, was made the enquiry officer and a clear case
     of likelihood of bias was made out by the appellant and it was
     accepted by the Single Judge – The employer Bank did not even
     contest this position before the Division Bench and merely wanted
     the question of law to be left open – The appellant was not at fault
     for the defect in the enquiry – No fresh enquiry was initiated nor
     was any liberty sought from the Division Bench – In this scenario,
     appellant cannot be denied the benefit of promotion from 28.07.2001
     when he was ordered to be promoted – On the facts of this case,
     relief will be encompassed in the phrase “consequential benefits”
     which the Single Judge clearly granted. [Paras 24, 25, 26]

                              Case Law Cited
     C.O. Arumugam & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (1991) Supp. 2
     SCC 199; Union of India & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. [1991]
     3 SCR 790 : (1991) 4 SCC 109; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal
     & Anr. [2008] 14 SCR 621 : (2008) 17 SCC 491; Chaduranga
     Kanthraj URS and Anr. v. P. Ravi Kumar & Ors., 2024 INSC 957;
     Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024
     INSC 906 – referred to.

                             List of Keywords
     Service Law; Benefit of promotion; Monetary benefits; Contempt
     Petition; Consequential Benefits; Writ Appeal, Disciplinary
     Proceedings; Reduction of pay; Restoration of pay.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2023 of the High Court
     for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CONTC No. 311 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Abhijit Basu, Sr. Adv., Ms. Tatini Basu, Byrapaneni Suyodhan,
     Kumar Shashank.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Praveena Gautam, Pawan Shukla, Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas,
     Ms. Akanksha Tyagi.
1000                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the final
     judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court
     for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Contempt Case No.
     311 of 2023. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the
     Contempt Petition holding that the orders the violation of which,
     was complained of, have been duly complied with by the alleged
     contemnor-respondents. The High Court further held that promotion
     up to Scale-V cannot be granted as there was no adjudication in
     the order of the Writ Court and further that the cancellation of the
     promotion order had not been challenged. The High Court noted that
     such reliefs cannot be granted in the contempt case.

     Brief facts:
3.   In 1983, the appellant was appointed as a Probationary Officer in
     the Bank of Baroda and in the year 1992, he was promoted to the
     Manager cadre (MMG-II).
4.   When the appellant was serving as Branch Manager, Utran Branch,
     District Surat, Gujarat, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.1999 for
     alleged lapses and irregularities committed by him during his service
     was issued. The appellant submitted his reply on 12.04.1999. A
     further Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2000 setting out ten more
     irregularities was issued to the appellant and he filed his reply on
     19.02.2000.
5.   At this stage, the appellant appeared in the promotion exercise from
     Scale-II to Scale-III on 22.12.2000. A charge-sheet in the disciplinary
     proceedings was issued to him on 26.12.2000.
6.   The results of the promotion were declared on 28.07.2001 and the
     appellant’s result was kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of
     the disciplinary proceedings. On 23.08.2001, after a detailed enquiry
     and after observing serious lapses on the part of the appellant in
     opening of the savings bank accounts of one Mr. Tejuddin Hussain
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           1001

               K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.


     and one Mr. Tajeshwali Basha and in sanctioning, documentation and
     disbursement of loans to the aforesaid customers, a minor penalty
     was imposed on the appellant. The penalty was “reduction in pay
     by 1 stage in a time scale for a period of 3 years without cumulative
     effect and not adversely affecting his pension.” The Appeal filed by the
     appellant before the Appellate Authority was rejected on 25.01.2002
     and the order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld. A review
     before the Reviewing Authority was also rejected on 01.01.2003.
7.   Admittedly, on 30.08.2002, the appellant was informed by a letter of
     Senior Branch Manager that his promotion from MMG/S-II to MMG/S-
     III, that was kept in abeyance, stood cancelled. On 16.03.2008, the
     appellant challenged the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings
     and called in question the correctness of the orders of the Disciplinary
     Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. There was
     no prayer challenging the cancellation of the promotion.
8.   Pending the Writ Petition, in the year 2012, the appellant appeared in
     the promotion exercise and was promoted from Scale-II to Scale-III
     as a Senior Branch Manager. It should be recorded herein that he
     further appeared in the subsequent promotion exercises of 2016, 2017
     and 2018 from Scale-III to Scale-IV but was declared unsuccessful.
9.   The learned Single Judge, by a judgment dated 20.07.2017, allowed
     his Writ Petition on the ground that the Enquiry Officer, who undertook
     the process of the enquiry, was junior to the appellant in Scale-II and
     the said officer had also appeared for interview for promotion to the
     category of Scale-III along with the appellant. The learned Single
     Judge concluded that there was real likelihood of bias. So holding, the
     learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in the following terms.
           “14. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the
           definite opinion that there existed real likelihood of bias
           in the entire process of enquiry. Therefore, this Court has
           absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt
           to hold that the entire impugned proceedings are vitiated.
           For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed,
           setting aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide
           proceedings No. SGZ:ZVD. 15/0-1372 dated 23.08.2001 as
           confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 25-01-
           2002 as confirmed by respondent no. 1 vide proceedings
1002                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          No. AGM.AP.INSP.AUDIT.3744 dated 01.01.2003 and the
          petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits. No
          order as to costs.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

10. The Bank of Baroda filed Writ Appeal No. 1285 of 2017 against the
    judgment of the learned Single Judge. We find from the website of
    the High Court that by an order of 13.09.2017 the Division Bench
    suspended the order of the learned Single Judge. Pending the Writ
    Appeal, the appellant superannuated on 31.12.2018. The Writ Appeal
    was disposed of on 30.03.2022 in the following terms:
          “Learned counsel for the appellants is fair enough in stating
          before this Court that in the light of the retirement of the
          employee in question, the present writ appeal be disposed
          of leaving the question of law open.
          The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving the
          question of law open.”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

11. On 10.07.2022, the appellant submitted a representation claiming,
    restoration of pay since the penalty was set aside; promotion from
    Scale-II to Scale-III from July, 2001 and monetary benefits and also
    claimed notional promotion placing him as the last candidate of each
    promotion exercise whereby the 2001 batchmates of the appellant got
    their promotions. This was followed by a legal notice of 16.08.2022
    and thereafter on 01.02.2023, a contempt petition was filed before
    the Division Bench against the respondents herein seeking relief in
    terms of prayers made by him in the representation.
12. The contemnors filed a reply on 20.07.2023 rebutting the claim of
    the appellant and contended that they having released the amount
    of Rs. 19,446/-, being the reduction in pay for three years, necessary
    compliances had been made. They prayed for the dismissal of the
    Contempt Petition. The Division Bench, as set out earlier, closed
    the contempt case.

     Contentions:
13. We have heard Mr. Abhijit Basu, learned senior advocate for the
    appellant ably assisted by Ms. Tatini Basu, advocate and Ms.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                      1003

               K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.


     Praveena Gautam, learned counsel, who effectively presented the
     case for the respondent-contemnors.
14. Mr. Abhijit Basu, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended
    that once the employee was exonerated with the quashing of the
    penalty proceedings, the employee has to be granted promotion
    by opening the sealed cover with retrospective effect along with
    the monetary benefits. Learned senior counsel contended that the
    appellant became entitled to promotion with effect from July, 2001 and
    he is entitled to consequential benefits from the said date. Learned
    senior counsel further contended that the appellant’s promotion in
    2012 and his subsequent inability to get promoted to the higher scale
    is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the present case because of
    the appellant’s entitlement for promotion to Scale-III with effect from
    July, 2001. Learned senior counsel contended that even in the year
    2012, the promotion granted was without any pay hike in benefits.
    Learned senior counsel contended that the promotion has to be
    made effective from July, 2001 and it should remain effective till his
    superannuation and all consequential benefits including monetary
    benefits should be given by the respondents. Learned senior counsel
    relied on C.O. Arumugam & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors., 1991
    Supp (2) SCC 199 (para 5) and Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.
    Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109 (para 26).
15. Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned counsel for the respondents submits
    that the result of the appellant for promotion from Scale-II to Scale-
    III, which was kept in abeyance due to the ongoing disciplinary
    proceedings, was cancelled vide letter dated 30.08.2022, before the
    filing of the Writ Petition. In spite of the same, the learned counsel
    contends that the appellant did not challenge the cancellation of
    promotion dated 30.08.2002. Learned counsel relied on Bachhaj
    Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491 to contend that
    in the absence of pleadings no relief can be granted.
16. Learned counsel Ms. Praveena Gautam further contends that in
    the operative order of the learned Single Judge only consequential
    benefits were given and not promotions or notional promotion up to
    Scale-V were ordered. According to the learned counsel, the only
    consequential benefits to which the appellant became entitled, on the
    setting aside of the minor penalty imposed on him, was the payment
1004                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     of the arrears in salary occasioned by the said penalty and nothing
     more. According to the learned counsel, consequential benefits would
     not include promotion with effect from 28.07.2001 as the same stood
     cancelled as early as on 30.08.2002 and was not challenged.
17. Learned counsel further contends that while the appellant may have
    a right to be considered for promotion, the appellant does not have
    a right to promotion. According to the learned counsel, the appellant
    was promoted from Scale-II to Scale-III in the year 2012 and was
    unsuccessful in the subsequent promotion exercises of 2016, 2017
    and 2018 for promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV. Learned counsel
    contends that the appellant has forgone his right to challenge the
    cancellation by accepting the subsequent promotion and appearing
    in the further promotion exercises. Learned counsel vehemently
    opposes the plea made in the representation of the appellant that he
    be placed as the last candidate of each promotion exercise where
    his 2001 batchmates from Scale-II to Scale-III got their promotions.
    Learned counsel relied on Chaduranga Kanthraj URS and Anr.
    V. P. Ravi Kumar & Ors. (2024 INSC 957) to contend that a court
    in contempt cannot go behind the main order and would not enter
    into the questions which have not been dealt with and decided in
    the judgment or order, the violation of which is complained of by
    the applicant.
18. Learned counsel contends that no contempt is made out, since two
    interpretations were possible and hence the action of the respondents
    cannot be held as contumacious. Learned counsel relies on the
    judgment of Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi &
    Ors., (2024 INSC 906) to contend that promotion becomes effective
    on assumption of duties and since the appellant has superannuated,
    he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits. Learned counsel
    distinguishes the judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) to contend
    that in the absence of a challenge to the cancellation order, the said
    judgment cannot be made applicable.
19. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
    for the parties and perused the records.
20. The undisputed facts are that in contemplation of the disciplinary
    enquiry, the appellant participated in the exercise for promotion from
    MMG/S-II to MMG/S-III and that his promotion was kept in abeyance.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        1005

               K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.


     It is very clear that he was promoted and the promotion was kept in
     abeyance. The communication of the cancellation reads as follows:
           “We refer to your representation 22.04.02 requesting for
           declaration of your promotion result from MMG/S III-2000.
           We have been informed,
           “On referring the matter to our higher authorities, we are
           advised that the promotion of Mr. K. Samba Murthy from
           MMG/S II to MMG/S III which was kept in abeyance has
           been treated as cancelled.”
21. It is also undisputed that after the penalty was imposed in the
    disciplinary proceedings and confirmed right up to the Reviewing
    Authority, the learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the
    disciplinary proceedings and ordered that the appellant was entitled
    to all consequential benefits.
22. Admittedly, thereafter, the Bank of Baroda which was the employer
    reported to the Court hearing the Writ Appeal that in view of the
    superannuation of the appellant, all that they wanted was that the
    questions of the law to be left open. The net result was that the
    learned Single Judge’s order remained intact and has since attained
    finality. The further undisputed fact is that in the meantime, pending
    the Writ Petition, the appellant was promoted in 2012 from Scale-II
    to Scale-III and he assumed the promoted post.
23. In this background, the only question that arises in these proceedings
    is: Ought not the respondents have granted the benefit of promotion
    from MMG/Scale-II to MMG/Scale-III with effect from 28.07.2001 with
    all monetary benefits to the appellant.
24. Admittedly, the only compliance made by the respondents was
    to pay the amount of Rs. 19,446/- being the reduction in pay for
    three years. The learned Single Judge set aside the disciplinary
    proceedings on a ground for which the appellant was not at fault. A
    junior officer, who was competing for promotion with the appellant,
    was made the enquiry officer and a clear case of likelihood of bias
    was made out by the appellant and it was accepted by the learned
    Single Judge. The employer Bank did not even contest this position
    before the Division Bench and merely wanted the question of law
1006                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     to be left open. The appellant was not at fault for the defect in the
     enquiry. No fresh enquiry was initiated nor was any liberty sought
     from the Division Bench.
25. In this scenario, are we to deny the appellant the benefit of promotion
    from 28.07.2001 when he was ordered to be promoted but which
    order was kept in abeyance and which was cancelled only because
    of the result of the enquiry?
26. We think not. That will be very unfair and we are not prepared to put
    our imprimatur on such an interpretation. We are also not impressed
    with the submissions of Ms. Praveena Gautam, learned counsel that
    there were no pleadings about the illegality of the cancellation order
    and no prayer for setting aside the order of cancellation was made. On
    the facts of this case, we find that such relief will be encompassed in
    the phrase “consequential benefits” which the learned Single Judge
    clearly granted. In any event, ends of justice cannot be sacrificed
    on the altar of technicalities.
27. We also do not find the judgment in Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) to
    be applicable. Unlike in the present case, the result of the promotion
    was not kept in abeyance in that case. There, before the approval
    for promotion could be received to the post of Chief Scientific
    Officer, the incumbent had superannuated. In this case, in 2012,
    the appellant assumed the promoted post. The only question was
    about giving him the benefit from 28.07.2001, when he was entitled.
    The argument that granting relief to the appellant would tantamount
    to travelling beyond the main order, does not carry weight insofar
    as granting the appellant promotion from Scale-II to Scale-III with
    effect from 28.07.2001.
28. Merely paying him Rs. 19,446/-, which admittedly is the reduced
    pay for three years, cannot amount to compliance with the order of
    the learned Single Judge. The objection to the maintainability of the
    Contempt Petition before the Division Bench is also a non-starter. It
    is a hyper-technical argument and in any event the Division Bench
    did not dismiss the Contempt Petition on maintainability.
29. The respondent-authorities should have on their own extended the
    benefit once the writ appeal was disposed of and the order of the
    learned Single Judge stood affirmed. The learned Single Judge, as
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1007

               K. Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors.


     early as on 20.07.2017, allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant
     in 2008, namely, Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2008. The writ appeal
     was also disposed of on 30.03.2022 and the interim order stood
     vacated. The appellant has been running from pillar to post, for
     the last two decades. On 10.07.2022, when he sought compliance,
     all that the respondent-authorities did was to pay him a “princely”
     sum of Rs. 19,446/-, which was the reduced pay for the three years.
     Alas, even after succeeding in a long drawn and hard-fought legal
     battle the appellant was left only with a pyrrhic victory.
30. Insofar as promotion with effect from 28.07.2001 for the post of
    Manager Grade-III is concerned, we order that the appellant should
    be granted the same with all monetary benefits since the fundamental
    defect in the enquiry was due to no fault of the appellant. The defect
    was also accepted by the Bank when they did not press the appeal.
    The benefit of promotion to Manager Grade-III from 28.07.2001 is
    covered in the expression “consequential benefits” as ordered in
    the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2017 in Writ
    Petition No. 7616 of 2008. We say so on the facts of the present case.
31. There is one more additional aspect. It is not clear from the record
    as to on what ground the appellant was denied promotion in 2016,
    2017 and 2018 exercises, for scales upward of Manager Scale-III. The
    judgment of the learned Single Judge is dated 20.07.2017. We also
    find that by an order of 13.09.2017, the Division Bench suspended
    the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench disposed
    of the matter on 30.03.2022. We cannot venture into that arena while
    adjudicating the present Contempt Petition hence. We reserve liberty
    to the appellant to resort to such remedies as may be available to
    him in law insofar as his claim of denial for further promotions from
    upwards of Management Grade-III is concerned. We order that, in
    the event of any proceedings being initiated, all questions may be
    permitted to be raised by the parties which will be decided on their
    own merits. We also direct that such proceedings should not be
    rejected on the grounds of limitation or laches.
32. We are, for the present, not inclined to proceed against the
    respondents for action in contempt. We grant an opportunity to them
    to pass orders within four weeks from today remedy the situation
    by granting promotion to the appellant from Manager Scale-II to
1008                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     Scale-III from 28.07.2001 and grant him all monetary benefits with
     interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the respective dates the
     monetary benefits fell due.
33. With the above observations, the Appeal is partly allowed. The
    impugned judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court
    for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Contempt Case No.
    311 of 2023 is set aside. Parties will act as per the directions in this
    judgment. No order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan