Smt. Renu Mishra Vs Sri Ranveer Prasad Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and Another

This Court has asked the learned counsel for the applicant, if he wants, he may take time for filing objection against the compliance affidavit but he refused to file objection and has submitted that he may be permitted to argue the matter without filing the objections.

¶10

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of order dated 15.01.2025. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted herein below:-

¶11

"20. In the light of discussion made above, present writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 and 20.08.2024 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law with regard to punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner. While passing fresh order, the disciplinary authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers being Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh. "

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was dismissed for the charge of sitting on 'Dharna' for four days, whereas, other persons were awarded lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicant had approached

¶13

CAPL No. 1712 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

this Court by filing Writ -A No. 8864 of 2024, which was allowed by a judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 and the relevant para of the judgment has already been quoted above.

¶16

It is further submitted that despite directions in the judgment and order dated 15.01.2025 passed in the writ petition that the similar punishment should also be awarded to the applicant as awarded to four other persons, i.e. to Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh but the respondent has awarded higher punishment than the other four persons by passing order for stoppage of 11 increments.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 on 23.07.2025, against which no objections have been filed by the applicant till date and enclosing therein the copy of the order dated 12.07.2025, discussing the distinction in the case of the applicant and other four persons and awarding different punishments. The distinction between the case of the applicant and other four persons, has been discussed at page 41 of the order dated 12.07.2025, the relevant is quoted herein below:-

¶18

" प्रकरण में यािचनी द्वारा योिजत प्रश्नगत िरट यािचका में पािरत मा० उच्च न्यायालय के िनणर्यादेश िदनांक 15.01.2025 के समादर में यािचनी सिहत प्रकरण में दोषी अन्य किमयों यथा-श्रीमती प्रीती पाण्डेय, क्षेत्रीय िवपणन अिधकारी, श्री लालबहादुर गुप्ता, क्षेत्रीय िवपणन अिधकारी, श्री अिनल कुमार, क्षेत्रीय िवपणन अिधकारी एवं श्री िवजय िसह, क्षेत्रीय िवपणन अिधकारी के िवरूद्ध िनगर्त आरोप / अनुपूरक आरोप एवं उसके समथर्न में प्रस्तुत साक्ष्यों व अन्य समस्त अिभलेखों तथा उनके िवरूद्ध िनगर्त दण्डादेशों का तुलनात्मक रूप से गहनता से पिरशीलन और परीक्षण िकया गया िजसमें पाया गया िक यािचनी श्रीमती रेनू िमश्रा, िवपणन िनरीक्षक (पदच्युत) के िवरूद्ध कुल 06 आरोप एवं 02 अनुपूरक आरोप तथा उपरोक्तानुसार दोषी अन्य किमयों के िवरूद्ध कुल 06 आरोप एवं 01 अनुपूरक आरोप िनरूिपत िकये गये हैं । इस प्रकार यािचनी के िवरूद्ध अन्य दोषी किमयों की तुलना में एक अनुपूरक आरोप सं०-02 अिधक अिधरोिपत िकया गया है, िजसमें मुख्य रूप से यािचनी को उच्चािधकािरयों के आदेशों की अवहेलना करते हुये स्वेच्छाचािरता बरतने, यूिनयन के लैटर पैड का दुरूपयोग कर पत्र िदनांक 09.08.2022 द्वारा िनलम्बन वापस लेने हेतु उच्चािधकािरयों के ऊपर दबाव बनाने अन्यथा की दशा में आत्मदाह की धमकी देने हेतु आरोिपत िकया गया है, जो एक गम्भीर प्रकृित का आरोप होने के कारण यािचनी के प्रकरण को उक्त विणत किमयों के प्रकरण से पृथक करता है।"

¶19

CAPL No. 1712 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

After hearing learned for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the writ court has directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and while passing the fresh order, the authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers, namely, Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh. There is no direction for passing the similar punishment order as it has been passed in the case of other four persons as argued by the learning for the applicant.

¶22

After the perusal of the order dated 12.07.2025 and the relevant paras of the order which are quoted here in above, it is found that the disciplinary authority has given reasons for passing a harsher punishment order to the applicant. The judgment and order passed in the writ petition has been complied with.

¶23

From the facts, circumstances and discussion made herein above, the present contempt application is hereby dismissed. Notice, if any, stands discharge.

¶24

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶25

November 18, 2025

¶26

Preeti

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Renu Mishra v. Sri Ranveer Prasad Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renu Mishra v. Sri Ranveer Prasad Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Poonam Dubay @ Tiwari Vs Pranjal Tripathi, in Charge Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhua, Sultanpur

Abood Raza vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Raebareli and Another

Krishna Kumar vs Shri Ajay Chauhan the Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Prabhat Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate Jaisinghpur District Sultanpur and Another

Sushil Kumar Gautam Vs Sri Abhishek Singh, Director, Training U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Vs Dr. Pankaj Tripathi, Director of Agriculture Krishi Bhawan Lko.