In a contempt petition and sub-application regarding the non-consideration of the petitioner's promotion, the court noted prima facie evidence of wilful neglect. The respondent was granted time to provide instructions before the date of hearing was fixed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(CONTEMPT JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CONTEMPT PETITION No.2975 of 2014
AND
SUB.APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2015
IN
W.P.NO.15089 OF 2009
A.BABU, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KRISHNAGIRI RANGE- DIST. FOREST OFFICE, BANGALORE ROAD, KRISHNAGIRI 635 001.
... PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT PETITION AND SUB.APPLICATION
Vs
VINOD KUMAR I.F.S PRICIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & HEAD OF FORCE-1, “PANAGAL BUILDINGS” 1-JEENIS ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015.
.. RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT PETITION AND SUB.APPLICATION
Contempt Petition filed under section 11 of the contempt of Courts Act Praying this Hon'ble Court to punish the respondent herein for having wilful disobeyed the order dated 01.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.15089 of 2009.
Sub Application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying this Court be pleased to reopen and to punish the respondent herein, for having willfully disobeying the order dated 01.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.15089 of 2009.
The above Contempt Petition coming and Sub Applicationon this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.V.Chockalingham, Advovcate appearing for the petitioner herein; and of the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of A.Babu, filed herein; the Court made the following order:
“Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Contempt petition has submitted that absolutely there is
no impediment for the respondent to consider the petitioner's promotion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ at least after the expiry of period of punishment. Since there is no
currency of punishment beyond 18.08.2016, it is his statement that the
petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion.
2. In the wake of several promotions given to the petitioner's juniors, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the respondent had wilfully neglected to consider promotion of the petitioner beyond 18.08.2016. It is the positive case of learned senior counsel that several promotions have been given even after the year 2016, by which the juniors of petitioner have been promoted. This Court though prima facie finds reasons for issuing statutory notice in the contempt petition, is inclined to give one more opportunity to the respondent to respond.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent is directed to get instructions on before 10.08.2021.
Post the matter on 10.08.2021.”
WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AS AFORESAID, THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2021.
SD/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
RA- 06/08/2021
CONTEMPT PETITION No.2975/2014
AND SUB.APPLICATION NO.135 OF 2015
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
ORDER
DATED : 29/07/2021
FOR APPROVAL : 06/08/2021 APPROVED ON : 06/08/2021
To
Mr.VINOD KUMAR, I.F.S PRICIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & HEAD OF FORCE-1, “PANAGAL BUILDINGS” 1-JEENIS ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 01.10.2013.
Whether the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion after the expiry of the punishment period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Babu
Vinod Kumar
S.S.Sundar
Sanjeev Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
