IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1210 of 2009(S) ------------------------------- ORDER IN WPC.27325/2009 Dated 07/10/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.KUNJUMON, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUMAR RAJAN, VAZHATHARA VEEDU, KOZHIMALA P.O.THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA(3RD GR. OVERSEER,OFFICE OF THE ASST. ENG.,LSGD,EZHUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SMT.M.P.MARY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- J.ANSAR,40 YEARS,S/O.(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),ASST. ENG.,OFFICE OF THE ASST. ENG.,LSGD SECTION,EZHUMATTUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THELLIYOOR P.O.,MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------- C.O.C.No1210/2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th October, 2009. JUDGMENT Additional counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, and I have perused the same. Mr.Muhammed Haneef, learned counsel for the respondent submits on instructions, that the respondent has realised his mistake and that apparently he had been under the impression that the petitioner was discharging his duties in the Kallooppara Grama Panchayat itself and was therefore, signing the attendance register in the Kallooppara Panchayat office itself. Respondent who appears in person submits that he had not correctly understood the directions issued earlier and he had sought for a clarification from the Chief Engineer and that it was pursuant to the directions of the Chief Engineer that he had proceeded to instruct the petitioner to proceed to Kallooppara Panchayat and sign the attendance register. 2. There can be no doubt that the respondent did not act properly in making an attempt to get a clarification from the Chief Engineer as to the purport of the order passed by this C.O.C.1210/09 2 Court. Going by the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the respondent, I would have proceeded further under the Contempt of Courts Act, but I take note of the fact that he is relatively inexperienced in the post and a condemnation of his action by this Court would defenitely have a deleterious effect on his career. I am also convinced that the appology tendered by the respondent is genuine and the contriteness expressed by him is sincere. I futher take note of the submission that he will do all that is necessary to enable the petitioner to continue to discharge his functions at Ezhumattur Grama Panchayat and sign the attendance register. 3. But I also have to take note of the fact that the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court twice with Contempt of Court proceedings and he is being kept away from duty from 29.9.2009 onwards. Be that as it may. Respondent undertakes that the petitioner will be permitted to sign the attendance register at the Ezhumattur Grama Panchayat from 20.10.2009. The period during which the C.O.C.1210/09 3 petitioner has been kept away shall be treated as duty for all purposes and further steps will have to be taken by the Department to regularise his absence. It shall be the responsibility of the respondent herein to see that such regularisation is effected. 4. I also think it is appropriate that the cost incurred by the petitioner will have to be paid by the respondent herein and I deem it appropriate to close the Contempt of Court proceedings only on the respondent herein personally paying the cost. 5. Accordingly, COC shall stand closed on condition that the respondent herein pays to the petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost. The same shall be paid by the respondent out of his pocket. Such payment shall be effected within three weeks from today. V.GIRI Judge mrcs