1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 197/2008 (Devidas Vithoba Ramteke VERSUS Kamlesh Vithobaji Uikey & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shashikant Borkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dhumale h/f Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent for failure to comply with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.525/2005 on 16.03.2005. By the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.525/2005 on 16.03.2005, the respondent-management was directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and it was further observed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be deducted from the amount paid to the petitioner if after the Departmental Enquiry, the 2 management finds that the misconduct is not proved against the petitioner and decides to continue the petitioner in service. The Court further observed in the order dated 16.03.2005 that if misconduct was proved and management decided to maintain the punishment of dismissal, the amount of Rs.50,000/- should not be recovered from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, fresh enquiry was not conducted by the respondent-management in accordance with law by constituting a proper enquiry committee. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the fresh enquiry against the petitioner was a farce and the petitioner was illegally dismissed from service deliberately and intentionally so as to avoid the payment of back wages to the petitioner. Shri Dhumale, the learned counsel for the respondent-management, states that the order passed by the Court on 16.03.2005 is fully complied with as an amount of Rs.50,000/- is paid to the petitioner 3 within a period of four weeks from 16.03.2005 and the Departmental Enquiry is also completed within the time prescribed by the Court. According to the counsel for the management, the contempt petition has been mischievously filed by the petitioner though there is absolute compliance of the order passed by this Court on 16.03.2005. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the second Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner was a farce and the enquiry committee was not constituted in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 16.03.2005, cannot be appreciated in this contempt petition. By the order dated 16.03.2005, the Court had merely directed the management to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner and decide the Departmental Enquiry within a period of six months. The respondent-management has complied with both the directions issued by the Court by the order dated 4 16.03.2005. There appears to be no contempt whatsoever of the order passed by this Court on 16.03.2005 in Writ Petition No.525/2005. The contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are, therefore, dropped. The contempt petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE APTE