•^ IN THB HON'BLE HIGI^COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Q C^, BILASPUR^j CONTEMPT PETITIGN N0: /o 1?^ PETITIONBR ^•" /2009 Sagun Singh Thakur ^yr" ^•^K^" ...^ '^••< CONTEMNOR RESPONDENTS S/o Late Shri Madho Singh Thakur, aged about 49 years, Additional office Asstt. Gr. II, O/o The Junior . Engineer C.S. Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Bijapur, D/Centre, District Bijapur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Shri N.W. Haneiy, Executive Engineer (O&M) Divison, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Dantewada, District Dantewada (South Baster) 2. Shri D.D. Patrikar, Dy. General Manager (MA.S.) C.S. Power Holding Co., Ltd. Head Quarter Dangania, Raipur (C.G.) CONTEMP PBTIION UNDBR SECTION 12^150F CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT READ WITItARTICLB ^15 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA H ^. ^.; h^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (f ') S.B. : HON*BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Contempt Case (C) No.233/2009 PETITIONER CONTEMNORS RESPONDENTS Sagun Singh Thakur Versus Shri N. W. Hanery and another Petition under Section 12 & 15 ofthe Contempt ofCourt Act read with Article 215 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri R.K. Gomasta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the respohdents ORAL- ORDER (Passed on07.Gl.2011) Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order of transfer, a petition was filed before this Court and vide order dated 6.7.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3602/07, the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before respondent-Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty and Court directed that representation, if any, made by the petitioner shall be decided by the authority strictly in accordance with law. He submits that when he submitted representation, a show-cause ^^s^. /'^. '\ i' %%:'.;- l^ 1 '^'" 1: ^. ^^/ -2- |lm"11"" l"N>' Q ^ notice was given to him on 27th July, 2009 proposing disciplinary action on submission of representation dated 10.7.2009 directly in the office and not through proper channel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authority by issuing such a letter to the petitioner committed an act of willful disobedience and violation of Court's order as instead of deciding his representation, disciplinary proceedings was initiated. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's representation has been duly considered and the same has been allowed and he was given posting at the place of his choice.It has also been submitted in the reply that the show-cause notice was issued because the petitioner had submitted his representation directly to the Chairman, who was not at all the party to the writ petition filed and not through proper channel, but later on, the same was withdrawn without taking any further action after receiving the reply of the petitioner, filed as Annexure C-4. 4. The respondents authority have passed the order on petitioner's representation as directed by this Court, the respondent- authority has also tendered unconditional apology and has explained the circumstances in which the show-cause notice was issued and it was submitted that as soon as reply of the petitioner was received, the notice was withdrawn. -3- '^ i^.. 1 5. Taking into consideration the submissions and the material on record, no contempt can be said to have been committed. The respondent authorities have also considered the representation and the petitioner was posted at the place of his choice. The show-cause notice which was issued was also revoked and withdrawn. In the totality of the circumstances, after considering the records and the reply of the respondents, I do not find any contempt to have been committed by the respondents. The rule is therefore, discharged. Praveen 6. The petition is accordingly finally disposed off. Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge