This is an oral contempt order dismissing an application where the applicant failed to show that the respondent's tentative disagreement with a favorable enquiry report constituted contempt; the court noted a fresh cause of action for challenging dismissal.
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.2030 of 2016 (4) dt.16-11-2016
1
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2030 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8697 of 2015 ====================================================== Sudeshwar Sah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuri Lata For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER |
|
| 4 | 16-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. |
| The instant contempt application has been filed against the order dated 5.1.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8697 of 2015. |
|
| In the writ petition, the petitioner assailed the second show- | |
| cause notice, dated 18.5.2015 whereby he was asked to file reply | |
| to the enquiry report though the same was in his favour. This | |
| Court in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of | |
| Lav Nigam vs. The Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd., reported in | |
| **_(2006) 9 SCC 440_**quashed the show cause with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. |
Thereafter, the respondents issued second show-cause expressing their tentative disagreement with the findings recorded in the enquiry report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tentative
Patna High Court MJC No.2030 of 2016 (4) dt.16-11-2016
2
disagreement is not based on any factual aspect.
In my view, the aforesaid submission could not be a matter of contempt but may provide a fresh cause action to the petitioner. As the petitioner has been dismissed from service, it will be open for him to challenge it before an appropriate forum.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
application stands disposed of.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
KHAN/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a tentative disagreement of the respondents with an enquiry report without factual basis amounts to contempt.
Whether a former employee dismissed from service may challenge the dismissal before an appropriate forum instead of filing a contempt petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lav Nigam vs. The Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd.Distinguished¶4
(2006) 9 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudeshwar Sah
The State of Bihar
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
