IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 463 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.634/2008 Dated 14/01/2008 .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- PRATHAPAN P., S/O.P.NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (IB), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT "MAYAPURI", NEAR HOTEL BHUVANESWARI, MINI BYE PASS ROAD, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 4. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT: ------------- P.MARAPANDIYAN, IAS, AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN : 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Contempt Case (Civil). 463/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The respondent, Sri. P.Marapandiyan, has appeared before this Court pursuant to the direction issued on 27.3.2008. He has also filed an affidavit recounting the factors, which according to him, contributed to the lapse on his part in effecting compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 14.1.2008. Sri.Vinod Chandran, learned Special Government Pleader, took me through the affidavit in detail. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai also. He submits that the attitude on the part of the respondent as revealed from the affidavit does not seem to be very commendable. May be he had other works of pressing nature which also had to be taken care of by him. But that does not relieve him of his obligation to take such steps as are necessary to effect compliance of the directions issued by this Court, it is contended. It is true that the fact that the respondent had other works of pressing nature by itself may not be a reason to C.O.C.463/2008 2 condone the failure as such in effecting compliance of the directions of this Court. But in the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am convinced that there is no willful latches or negligence on the part of the respondent. I also take note of the fact that he has tendered his unconditional apology for the lapse. I further take note of the fact that the affidavit makes a reference to a decision taken by the Government to see that the disciplinary action will be completed within a period of thirty days as such. Apology tendered by the respondent is accepted and for all these reasons, I am of the view that it is not necessary to further proceed with the Contempt of Court case. Accordingly the same is closed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs C.O.C.463/2008 3 C.O.C.463/2008 4 C.O.C.463/2008 5 The direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C).634/2008 dated 14.1.2008, is unambiguous and categoric. First respondent in the writ petition was directed to see that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Ext.P3 memo of charges was finalised as early as possible, at any rate on or before 15.3.2008. Contempt of Court case has been instituted on 24.3.2008 alleging that the proceedings have not been finalized and when the matter came up on 26.3.2008, learned Government Pleader sought for time and accordingly it is posted today. Learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Vinod Chandran submits that the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalized so far. Nor was an application for extension of time filed either prior to 15.3.2008 or even as on 24.3.2008, when the Contempt of Court Case is instituted. Apparently, an application for extension of time is proposed to be filed today. 2. Petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2008 and it is taking note of the said fact as well that a direction was issued to finalize the disciplinary proceedings at the C.O.C.463/2008 6 earliest, at any rate, by 15.3.2008. Prima facie I do not find any reason why the direction could not have been complied with. If the Government was of the opinion that there were factors which stand in the way of the completion of the proceedings within time, they should have moved an application for extension of time explaining such reasons. That has not been done so far. Court is also constrained to take note of the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.3.2008, and his aspiration for promotion, whether justified or not, was a valuable right which he sought to exercise. A direction issued by this Court merited serious attention and I am distressed by the fact that there is indifference, which might even amount to callous indifference in taking note of such directions and acting accordingly. 3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie, there is non compliance of the directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, Contempt Case is admitted. Issue notice by speed post to the respondent. Personal appearance not dispensed with. C.O.C.463/2008 7 Post on 7.4.2008. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs