The Court held that deciding whether the petitioner should be suspended or reinstated is an administrative decision, and this Court cannot adjudicate it in contempt proceedings. The petition was dismissed as there was no wilful contempt.
The Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to challenge the decision in separate proceedings.
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.
Contempt Petition No.1940 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Contempt Petition No.1940 of 2019
V.Jayaraj ... Petitioner
vs.
Contempt Petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the Respondents herein for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7835 of 2017.
For Respondents : Mr.B.Kannan, Government Advocate
O R D E R
Petitioner has come up with this Petition seeking to
punish the Respondents herein for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7835 of 2017.
in W.P.No.7835 of 2017, this Court, placing reliance on an Apex Court decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar reported in AIR 2018 SC 4060 , has held as under:
Page No.1 of 3
Contempt Petition No.1940 of 2019
“5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the learned Criminal Court is directed to expedite the matter without adjourning the matter beyond 15 days at any point of time and the Respondents are expected to take a decision to reinstate the Petitioner in a non-sensitive post within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the Apex Court's decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar, I.P.S. (cited supra) and also Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another, reported in 2015 (3) CTC 119. ...”
has been taken by the 2nd Respondent, vide proceedings dated
26.09.2019 in Na.Ka.No.25690/2014/A4. According to the Petitioner, the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent amounts to disobedience of the order of this Court, which is wilful and deliberate.
continued or whether the Petitioner should be reinstated, is a decision to be taken on the Administrative side and that is the reason why, this Court has passed an order expecting the Respondents to take a decision to reinstate the Petitioner. Further, there is no specific direction that, the Petitioner
should be posted in a non-sensitive post. Whether the decision of the 2nd Respondent runs counter to the decision of
the Apex Court or not, has to be decided by means of separate proceedings and this Court cannot decide the said issue in Contempt proceedings.
Page No.2 of 3
Contempt Petition No.1940 of 2019
Promod Kumar and Ajay Kumar Choudhary (cited supra) is on the
point or not will be decided, in case, the Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 26.09.2019 by means of a separate proceedings.
22.07.2019 passed by this Court, this Contempt Petition is
closed, with liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 26.09.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES)
AEB
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2020.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
NRK/26/02/2020
To
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.
Page No.3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the decision of the District Revenue Officer regarding the petitioner's posting amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court's order under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod KumarReferred¶17
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar, AIR 2018 SC 4060 · Who else cites this
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶21
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India, 2015 (3) CTC 119
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Jayaraj
C.Kathiravan
S.Kavitha
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.Vaidyanathan
Parties & counsel
