{1) HI^H COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BIL^SPUR Contempt Petition No. 110/2008 PETITIONER Vs CONTEMNORS Shyam Das Kurre, ag©dabout 55 years, S/o Shri Tangu, R/o Viliage Sumedha Post: Banki Mon9ra, bist. Korba (C.Q.) l* B.K« Sinha, Chajrm<m cum Managing Oirector, Sought Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bibspur (C^). 2. Om' Prakash, Chief Seneral AAanag< SECL Areas, Korba (C©). 3* B,K< Narendra, Dy* Seneral Manager cum Sub ^rea Manager, Banki Coiliery, PO: Bexnki-MQngra, bi^t. Korba (C^) 4. S.P. Palnaik, Personnet Manager, PO: Banki-Mongra, Dist. Korba (C©) &C®setT|': Mr. Govmd ftam Miri, Advocate for the petitloner. ORDER (Passed on 28.3.2008) Per Dhjrendra MishrQ. J: 1. By this petition under Article 215 of -Hie Constitution of India and Sections 12 & 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971/the petitioner has prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings agas'nst 1+ie contemnors herein on 1+ie aliegation that contemnors have wiilfully fiouted the order dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in Criminaf Revision No.343 of 2004. 2. ©rievanceof the petitioner i's that 1+ie petitioner was prosecuted in Criminal Case No,2649/97 and he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 17.7.2001. Against the said judgment the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which was registered as CriminaJ Appeal No.129/01, however, 1+ie same has also been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Biiaspur vide judgment dated 26.6.2004. Thereafter, against 1+ie above judgment of conviction the petitioner has preferred a Crimina} Revision No.343/04 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 303/2005 suspended th@ judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner until further orders, h'owever, the contemnors herein have initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued charge shset of Annexure P-2 on 24.10.2005 on 1+ie basis of sa.me charges for which the petitioner was convicted in 1+ie criminal case. T^ie petitioner submitted his reply of Annexure P-3 together with the order of Annexure P-1 by which his conviction WGS suspended until further orders and requested for withdrawal of the charge sheet and to dlow the petitioner to resume his duties* However, the contemnors proceeded with the enquiry omc! dismissed the petitioner from his services on 27.4,2006 vs'de Annexure P-6 in violation of the order of Annexure P-1, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of MP, High Court jn the matter of Jamuna Prasad JdisQrsi Vs. Smt. Shikha Dubey, Collector reporhed in 1999 (2) JLJ 382 submitted that since conviction of the petitioner was suspended by tiie High Court vide Annexure P-1, the respondent could not have conducted the enquiry on the basis of same charges even after the above order was produced for thes'r perusal by the petitioner and thus they have willfuliy viofated the order of Annexure P-1, 4. In tiie matter of Jamuna Prasad Jdsani (supra) conviction of the petitioner, who was elected Panch of Janapad Panchayat Timarni, was suspended by the High Court. Contemnor, who was CoJlector* of Harda, exercising powers under Panchoyat Raj Adhiniyam declared that the office of the petitioner became vacant on account of the fact 1+iat he incurred disquaiificatjon under tiie Panchayqt Raj Adhiniyam because of X^ t^-«^^ conviction in the crimina} case against the appeaf was filed, Jhe contemnor did not go through tiie order passed by l+ie High Court which was produced before her whereby the conviction of the petitioner of that case was suspended. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge of MP< High Court heJd that it is a wijlful violation of the Courfs order. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner's conviction has been suspended by 1+ii's Court in criminaS revision. The Disciplinary Authority initjated ^ parallel discjplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the same charges for which he was prosecuted and convicted by 1+ie criminal court-. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.10.2005 omd he replied to the charge sheet, however, considering the reply unsatisfactory an enquiry was ordered vide order dated 3.11.2005 and accordingjy enquiry was conducted. TTiereafter, after considering the report of the enquiry officec and the findings contained therein, the competent authority has imposed the punishment of dismissai from tiie service of the company as per service standing orders of 1+se company^ 6< In the instant ca^e only the order of conviction has been suspended in thecriminal revision preferred by the petitioner and there is no order that the employer of 1+ie petitioner cannot conduct discipljnary proceeding against the petitioner for the same purpose, Moreover, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service after due enquiry and therefore, there is no viofation of the order of Annexure P-1 dated 30.3.2005. 7, In view of 1+ie above, the petition has no merit, the same is iiabSe to be dismissed and it 'ss hereby dismissed, Ro^han/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge