IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 943 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21387/2009 Dated 06/08/2009 PETITIONER: --------------- CAPT.J.DAVID RAVI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT A.R.CAMP ROAD, MARYKUNNU, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ARAVIND JADAV (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY INDIA LTD, AIRLINES HOUSE, GURUDWARA RAKABGANJ ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. S.P.S.SURI, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(OPERATIONS), NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY INDIA LTD, AIRLINES HOUSE, GURUDWARA RAKABGANJ ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. E.A.VARGHESE, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTHERN REGION, NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY INDIA LTD,CHENNAI-27 4. CHETAN PRAKASH, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATIONS) NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY INDIA LTD,CHENNAI-27 S.C. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = COC. No. 943 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. J U D G M E N T Te petitioner, who was a Pilot employed by the National Aviation Company India Limited, had moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) 21387/2009, challenging an order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the Executive Director, Southern Region, National Aviation Company India Limited, Chennai, placing him under suspension. By Annexure A judgment dated 6.8.2009, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the observation that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded expeditiously and in any event, within three months from that day. The allegation levelled against the respondents in this contempt case is that without holding an enquiry, a decision was taken on 20.8.2009 to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is alleged that the said action of the respondents amounts to contempt of this Court. 2. It is brought to my notice that challenging the order passed by the respondents, terminating his service, the petitioner has instituted W.P.(C) 28604/2009 and that the said writ petition is pending. In my opinion, if the respondents have passed an order terminating the petitioner's service COC 943/2010 2 without following the prescribed procedure, it can not be said to be an act in contempt of this Court. If the order is bad in law, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the writ petition he has filed challenging the said order. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prosecute WP(C) No. 28604/2010, this contempt case is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) knc/-