Allowed¶25

S.Chithra v. a. Balumuthu

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench) – Cont.P (MD) No.1957 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.5666 of 2024

Madras HC12 Mar 2025CONT P(MD)/1957/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Search terms: contempt petition; Section 11; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; wilful and deliberate disobedience; W.P.(MD) No.5666 of 2024 order dated 11.03.2024; restoration of missing/vanished service register; Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District; S. Chithra; A. Balumuthu; K. Sivabalan; T. Amjadkhan Government Advocate; contemnor to appear 19.03.2025 to answer question of punishment; contempt petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition allowed; respondent/contemnor ordered to appear before the Court on 19.03.2025 to answer the question of punishment for failure to restore the petitioner's service register. ¶25

S.Chithra Vs a. Balumuthu — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt Petition allowed; respondent/contemnor ordered to appear before the Court on 19.03.2025 to answer the question of punishment for failure to restore the petitioner's service register.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/contemnor (Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai) wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the Court's order in W.P.(MD) No.5666 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024 directing restoration of the petitioner's service register, and if so, what punishment/action under the Contempt of Courts Act is warranted.

¶12

Court's answer

Finding of non-compliance: the respondent/contemnor had received the Court's order in April 2024, yet after a lapse of almost 11 months the petitioner's service register remained unrestored and was reported as vanished, which the Court deemed to warrant severe action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Employers are custodians of the service registers of government employees and have a statutory duty to keep them in safe custody; having failed to do so and pleading that the register had vanished, stringent action was declared necessary in this case.

¶24

Key takeaways

The respondent/contemnor is directed to appear before this Court on 19.03.2025 to answer the question of punishment.ratio¶24
The Court disposed of the matter by allowing the Contempt Petition.ratio¶25
Rhetorical observation made in passing that the service register is like the heartbeat of a government servant.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench) — Cont.P (MD) No.1957 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.5666 of 2024 — L. Victoria Gowri, J. — 12.03.2025. Contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court(s) Act: petitioner S. Chithra sought punishment of A. Balumuthu, Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the Court's order of 11.03.2024 (W.P.(MD) No.5666 of 2024), which had directed restoration of the petitioner's service register within twelve weeks of receipt of the order's copy. The contemnor acknowledged receiving the order in April 2024, yet after almost 11 months pleaded that the service register had vanished. The Court held that employers, as custodians of government servants' service registers, bear a statutory duty of safe custody, found stringent action necessary, directed the contemnor to appear on 19.03.2025 to answer the question of punishment, and allowed the petition.

¶1

Cont.P.(MD) No.1957 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

Cont.P (MD) No.1957 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.5666 of 2024

¶7

S.Chithra

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

A.Balumuthu The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Sivagangai District.

¶11

... Contemnor / respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act, to punish the respondent for his wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court in WP.(MD).No.5666 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Cont.P.(MD) No.1957 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the specific direction of this Court was to take necessary steps for the restoration of the service register to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the date of the order was 11.03.2024. The respondent / contemnor agreed before this Court that he had received the copy of the order within four weeks from the date of the order, which was precisely in the month of April 2024. Even after a lapse of almost 11 months, the respondent / contemnor, who is present before this Court in a lethargic way submitted that the service register of the petitioner has vanished, which warrants severe action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶20

This Court carefully considering the plight of the petitioner that his service register has gone missing, had passed a specific direction to restore the same. The service register every Government servant is like the heartbeat of the government servant. The employers, who are the custodians of the service register of government employees, have a statutory

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Cont.P.(MD) No.1957 of 2024

¶24

duty to keep the same in safe custody. Having not done so and having the mentality to submit before this Court that the service register had vanished, stringent action is necessary in this case. The respondent / contemnor is directed to appear before this Court on 19.03.2025 to answer the question of punishment.

¶25