T' H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR CONTEIVIPT PETITSON N0.272/2007 PETITJONER RESPONDEMTS 1 h!- 4 Laxmi Narayan Dubey, S/o J.P. Dubey, Aged about 47 years, previousiy posted as (Pravar Grade) Selection Grade Assistant Professor, Economic Govt. CoStege, Rajiv Gandhi Government College; Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently posted at Government Agrasen IViahavidyalaya Bilha, District Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus Dr. K.D.P. Rao, Secretary/Gommissioner, Department of Higher Education; D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Dr. Yugul Kishore Bharti, Upper Director, Higher Edycation Department, Science College Parisar, Raipur(C.G.) Dr. R.B. Subramaniyan, Joint Director, 1-jjgher Education Directorate, Sdence College Parisar, Raipur (C.G.) R.P. Tandon (Ex-lncharge Principal), Rajiv Gandhi Government Arts and Commerce Coilege, Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presentiy posted as Assistant Professor, Government College, Kargi Road, Kota, Dlstrict Bilaspur(C.G.) 24 CONTEIVIPT PETiTION UNDER ARTiCLE 21S OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SNDIA Appearance: Shri A.S. Rajput, CounseJ forthe petitiQner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsei for respondent No.3. ^y Contempt Petition No.272/2007 ^^ . ORAL ORDER (24.11.2009) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard. Petitioner Laxmi Narayan Dubey, who was also petitioner in W.P. No.2037/2006, has filed this petition for initiation of proceedings of contempt against the respondent for the alieged defauit committed in compliance ofthe order dated 4th of September 2006 passedin W.P. No.2037/2006. ; While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court passed the foiEowing order: "5. Be that as. it may, a writ in the nature of direction to the respondents for appointing the petitioner as In- charge, Principal of Rajiv Gandhi Govemment Arts and Commerce College, Lormi cannot be granted, as admittedly, the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. However, in the factsand circumstances of thecase, the respondents No.1 o 5 and 7 are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the abovedirection." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it was directed bythis Court thatthe departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner shali be concluded within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 4th September 2006, but the same was not concluded in time and ultimateiy, it was concluded on 13.02.2008. • A reply has been filed.on behaif of respondent No.3. In the reply, respondent No.3 has contended that after passing ofthe order dated 4 September 2006, the entire records relating to the case of \ c.. ^^- ^ Contempt Petition No.272 of 2007 2^ the petitioner were called and it was found that the departmentai enquiry instituted against the petitioner was completed in the year 2002. However, the enquiry report along with concerned file was not availabie. Subsequently, after the Court order dated 4th of September 2006, orders were issued to reconstruct the fiie. The records those were coilected and made avallable were examined and it was found that the enquiry report submitted by the then Additional Coiiector, Biiaspur Regional Office, was accepted by the Government, holding the petitioner guilty and a show cause notice was served on the petitioner as to why 3 increments may not be stopped forthe act proved against him. The petitloner replied the ^ame. After this, no action was taken in the matter resulting in inordinate deiay. After reconstruction of the fiie and considering the petitioner's reply, the Department conduded the departmentaienquiry against the petitioner and directed for stopping 3 increments vide final order dated 13.02.2008. Learned counse! for respondent No.3 submits that after passing of the order by this Court on 4th of September 2006, the Department had taken steps for disposai ofthe departmental proceedings ofthe petltioner, but time was consumed on account of the aforesaid reasons, therefore, the delay in disposal of the departmental proceedings may be condoned. He submits that on account of the explanatlon submitted by respondent No.3, it wou!d not be a case of wiilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, therefore, the respondent would not be Ijable for proceeding/punishment for the contempt aiieged against him by the petitioner. After golng through the contents of the reply fiied by respondent No.3 and considering that uitimateiy, the departmental proceedings 'nave been concluded, and further that t'ne efforts were made just after passing of the order by this Court on 4 of September 2006, it appears that the delay in concluding the 'proceedings was on account of reconstruction of fiie. Thus, It does not appear to be a case of willfui djsobedience of the order passed by this Court; N ^r Contempt Petition No.272 of 2007 ^ . . • , • • -\ ., . ' . ; '. , '.. ..•'. . , • '. . !n the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 do not find any reason to proceed further in thiscontempt petition. zi5- shyna The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- I Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge a:"