IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt CaseNo. {2>&''~f- / 2011 PETITIONER ^ api.^ p(S- Cx-u o v' i<""\\ '^\ Jitendra Mishra, S/o. Shri Ram Lakhan Mishra, Aged about 35 ..<• years, Occupation- Manager, Pit" Cooperative Societies, Branch Baikunthpur, R/o. Village Khairi, Post Patna, Tahsil Bcdkunthpur, ' District Koriya (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR Mr. D.R.Dewangan, Aged about 55 years, Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). CONTEMPT PETITIQN_U/A. ^15 OF THE CONSTITUTION R/W. SEC. 10 & 12_OFJ'HE C_ONTEMPT OF COURT ACT ^ .. ^L "-<•- ^-A^/K-^* —'- 'XI-HC—78 311^1 ^il K;-<1* W Sf^V *4i<l> /'.- flfrocfr sbHPS ^"^ -^wwi, '.sxtiww, fsKniyy __.....<:^-t'...^-s..fe)..^—3&ri') sf^v •Tsqr ('yi^'^l) TOIIWHfCTOT^T T' SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra MohahShrivastava. j. f)0.11.9"11 tritim ttte petitjoner Shri Ashok Kumar Shukta, Heard on admission. This contempt petition Ras-b^ dated 24/06/2011 passed in VV.P.(S] Learned counsei ror the petiti] on 24/06/2011 in the aforementionel issued within a period of 90 days Chief Executive Ofricer shall treat ttt< the provisions contained in sub ruie Learned counsei for the to overreach the order of the Coil petition, a show cause notice date<i notice, according to the petitioner, i; aoes not amount TO a vaiia ana respondent was under an obiigai compliance of order dated 24/6/201 work which amounts to wiilful disob^c The two representations of| Annexure C/1 and Annexure C/3 st\ Teinstatement by submitting that the| petitioner has placed on record sho\| that Departmental Enquiry has beeiji fop tnis Court to embark upon view qf the fact that in the p&nding wj co|unsel for the petitioner. <*i<<ici<i1-< inwif ^ fe'zt ^re^R ^sffin 3ii^i enq(iiry ^en filed alleging willful disobedience of order No.1425/11. |oner submits that an interim order was passed |j writ petition that if no charge sheet has been the date of suspension i.e. 26/02/2011, the peiitioner as reinstated in service in view of of Rule 60 ofthe appiicable ruies of 1982. submits that an atiempt has been made |n inasmucn as aiong witn repiy in tne wnt 11/3/201i has been fiied whereas the said antedated. He further submits that the same constituted charge sheet. Therefore, the |on to treat the petitioner as reinstated In (I but the petitioner is not being aliowed to join of the order of the Court. the petitioner which have been piaced as that the petitioner has been insistin.g for cnargesneet nas not oeen given to nim. i ne )v cause notice dated 11/03/2011 which shows' initiated against him. !t wouid not be proper with regard to aitegation of antedating In I'rit petition, repiy has been filed and the maaer Droj)eny disobddience snow ^ T".'.,-^ 'aI°3:'XI-HC—78 WWff SCTT(ci» 3^ '^wwi\, ynly'iti, [ciowlj,< ...(^w;..&^..©...'^..:..<3^A/ •wi. loo SIT^T 'WK ('^clf3^1Ef) stl^l W Vw* Wff 3TI^9T'^Rhi' ueepi! ^ TOTOR Tift?i sn^i 3- is sub-judice. The notice dated enquiry. Whether the charge sfieet is in accordance with the provisions of the apDiicable ruies or suffers from ^ petition for the reason that the| '=Tif<<fci1ti1l ^Wctf ^ fs(<rl TFtf^K ^SlfOT 311^1 11/3/2011 appears to be a charge sheet initiating Inv invaliditv cannot be aone into in the contempt order of suspension is unaer cnaiienge in me substantive writ Detition fiied bvtle petitioner. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to issue notice to the resDondent at oresl^nt. This petition has to be dismissed however with iiberty to the petitioner to revjve in case, eventuaiity so arises. /- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava judge ../- r"-" --;''