h \m IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER CONTEMPT CASE (C) N0. V^ OF 2011 •^- y^c- 62. y«A-- J.K.S. Rana,*Retired Platoon Commander son of Late Bhupat Singh Rana, care of Dinesh Singh Ranra, Devnandan Nagar, Phase-11, Baima-Nagoi Road, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS [Contemnors] ^y^y ^" 1) 2) r. M.S. Tomar, Inspector General of Police, C.A.F., P.H.Q. Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Himanshu Gupta, Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.A.F., North Range, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^p'^"\^ ^ t?y.-^' 'y^iA-'" CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^-ime; SS^!SS& f <fl*1CTr fhW<ah s^ "4f4itf^, yfllyis, fsidl'y^ ^.....C^±-.....c.^..cai(^^ sn^i TPRT (1pf33T^ci) sii^i w h-H* '?Taff STT^T SttHlcf) TRiTWHfro sn^r FSB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan SUrivastava. J.l 3.8.2011 Shri V.K. Pandey, couns^l for the petitioner. Heard on admission. ^ll^^ HW^ ^ fS^ ^Fal^K ^sffinail^l wtth This petition has been fij disobedience of the order dat CourtmW.P. (S) 4758/05. Leamed counsel for the Court had elaboratety dealt petition and finding that th^ illegaMly in holding charges ft^ the inqxiiry officer, by not| disagrcement, much less represent and further that opportunity to explain with r^ disciplinaiy aufhority have consideration of these aspect^ made by the Court and ha^ Court. ^ed by the petitioner alleging waiful (;ed 3rd May, 2010 passed by fhis After going through fhe disciplmaiy authority on 16. was'assed by this Court, notlce betitioner submits tliat though this various issues raised in the writ disciplinary authority committed tlly proved as against fhe findtng of recording any reason for such an opportunlty of hearing to petitioner was not glven proper |;gard to fhe past piuiishments, the passed the order wifhout due of fhe matter and the observations thereby flouted the order of fhe gi^ing flfie again order whlch has been passed by fhe 1.2010, I fmd that after the order was issued to fhe petitioner and Fl'dSSi Mgtffis -^>S^^f XI-HC—78 'S^ "i)l<41<rl^, 0ti)y'i<o, [«l<liyLl< *<i*<wi tburai "^,200 SII^T'q^T (' p) 311^1 ^I R;-li+ ^Tsn 3f\^ ^qioh ^ Praveen ¥RIIW^fel311^1 2 petitioner submitted his reply. eftI-ilf^t^iH 'qTR^rf tf 'fe^l' <[^1^1< ^siRnsn^r The order says that in compUance of the order of fhe Coiirt, a co^y of inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner arid his reply w4s sought and he was also given an opportunity of peraonal hear(ng. The petitioner submitted his reply on 2.11.2010 and 'h^ submitted additional repty al^i grounds whlch are raised by ti| order and the disciplinaiy aut^iority has then decided fhe matter, hnposing fhe penalty of compr^sory retireinent. Irrespective of whefher ti I am not inclined to hold fhat 1 disobeymg fhe order of the C<|>urt. The petitioner may be correct in subniitting fhat the decis: manner. However, aU fhat can a writ petition challenging the may be available to him under was heard on 8.11.2010 and io. The order fiirther says fhat the |ie petitioner were mentloned in fhe |ie impugned order is Ulegal or not, ^ie respondent had any intention of on was not taken ui appropriate be ralsed by the petttioner by filin^ order passed on such grounds, as the law. With the aforesaid ob^ervations, fhe petition is fcially disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ./-/