In a contempt application, the Patna High Court examined compliance prior to its order dated 22.2.2013 mandating reconsideration of a dismissal case. The court found compliance and therefore dismissed the application.
The contempt application was disposed of.
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.
Patna High Court MJC No.3169 of 2013 (4) dt.07-03-2014
1
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3169 of 2013 In |
|---|
| Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5990 of 2012 ====================================================== Dr. Suresh Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
| Appearance : CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER |
| 4 07-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. |
| It appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated |
| against the petitioner on the allegation that he absented himself |
| from duty without sanctioned leave. Besides, the petitioner was |
| also charged of indulging in private practice. |
It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner evaded appearance before the disciplinary authority. Even after substituted service, the petitioner did not appear. The respondents passed an order of dismissal on the ground that the petitioner absented himself from duty without sanctioned leave and more so while he was on profession he indulged in private practice.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5990 of 2012 and by order dated 22.2.2013 this Court directed the respondent no.2 to reconsider the case of the
Patna High Court MJC No.3169 of 2013 (4) dt.07-03-2014
2
petitioner. It appears that pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondents have disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has raised a grievance that pursuant to the disposal of the representation, the consequential relief of the petitioner has not been granted.
In this contempt application, this Court would only see whether the order to the extent it has passed has been complied with or not. This Court finds that the order of this Court has been complied with. As such, this contempt application is disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
KHAN/-
Dr. Suresh Prasad
The State Of Bihar & Ors
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
