1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.198 OF 2008 Shri Harisingh Bandusing Sable .... Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. . .... Respondents. ..... The Petitioner is present in person. Miss. S.P. Maralekar, AGP for the State. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 9 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. The Petitioner and his Advocate were absent on the earlier occasion. The Advocate is absent even today. The Petitioner is alleging that the Respondents had willfully and deliberately not complied with their undertaking given to this court on affidavit which was filed in Criminal Application No.2831 of 1998 in Criminal Appeal No.596 of 1997. 2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as Dy. Superintendent of Police and thereafter posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer at Nanded. It is alleged that he was later on promoted and recommended for IPS cadre. It is his case that he was falsely involved in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the charge was possession of Assets Disproportionate to his known source of income. He was 2 acquitted from the case. There was another criminal case in which similar charges of corruption and bribery were levelled and in that case he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-by the Trial Court. He preferred a criminal appeal bearing no.596 of 1997 and therein applied for suspension of sentence. 3. In that application the affidavit-in-reply was filed by the Respondents in which they assured the court that in case the Petitioner succeeds in the criminal appeal and if conviction and sentence is set aside, he will be reinstated in service with benefits. 4. In the light of this affidavit-in-reply the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected. It is stated that this court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence but despite the order dated 2nd May 2006, the Petitioner was not given complete benefit as per the assurance and undertaking given to this court. It is no doubt true that the Petitioner was reinstated and superannuated from the Maharashtra Police Service cadre. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that he did not get benefit of two years in so far as his induction in IPS cadre. 6. Thus, the undertaking given to this court has been flouted. In the affidavit filed in reply to this Contempt Petition, all the events from the Petitioner becoming part of the Sate Police Services have been set out and particularly in paragraph-6 thereof. Subsequently, the explanation is given 3 that on account of his dismissal from the service post conviction he was not considered for induction in IPS cadre. After his acquittal and reinstatement, the proposal was forwarded to Union Public Service Commission (in short ‘UPSC’). However, the UPSC did not take any steps of review of the select list. It is in such circumstances, that the induction into IPS cadre was not granted. 7. Having perused the Contempt Petition and affidavit-in-reply, I am satisfied that the authority/respondents have done the needful as per the assurance and there is no case of Deliberately violating the undertaking or disobeying the order of this court. Therefore, there is no case of “civil contempt” under section 2(b) Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 8. The learned AGP, on instructions, states that if the UPSC has undertaken such review, then, the Respondents shall abide by such direction of the UPSC pursuant to the review. After such review and direction of the UPSC, if the Petitioner is entitled to a notional promotion and all benefits accruing, then, Respondents shall grant them to the Petitioner and take all steps so as to implement the directions in that behalf. 9. In the light of the statement made, which is accepted, the apprehension of the Petitioner does not survive. In the result, the Contempt Petition is disposed of. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 4