c IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Contempt Case No. 2.^' /^bFS ^ .,r^° M^f^^ ^.' ••^9 '^i •-.' PETITIONER -^siF ^••:^^'^'y ^>'^ ^•- RESPONDENT CONTEMNOR Ravindra Kurnar Roy S/o Shri Y.B. Roy, aged about 44 years, Junior ^ ^ Engineer, Durgkondal Distribution Centre under operation & raaintenance Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Disfribution corapany Ltd. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Shri D.K. Bhojak, E.E. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Kanker (C.G.) posted as Superintendent Engineer at 0/0 Chief Engineer (0/M) C.S.P.D. Co, Ltd. Raipur, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shri S.D. Telang, Superintendent Engineer, C.S.P.D. Co. Ltd. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) eONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT. I- -f- -HC-22 ^S[ r^||<L||^t<L|, ^Tl1^41(o. fa^ll^y *<INCrlT5b^|ch ;1T^T TR^ :.:....<^..e.^J.^) '^^)^ "WI, 200 ^T^T' ^ ^TT^T^T ^Jcb ^^ 5^^icb ^f^a Deepii W^T ^cTT^R ^TT SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan S Uirivastava. J. libejrty Cln 25-01-2011 Shri C.R.Sahu, counsel for the Learned counsei for the petitionj passed in W.P.No.1355/02, the order 27/5/02 was quashed, reserving administrative exigency so warrants. inten/ening period has not been paid, can be raised by the petitioner by wj concerned. Learned counsel for the petiti< representations but the authorities m any specific order and in respect of v^ notice has been issued and certain counsel for the petitioner submits that) the order dated 3/7/09, passed by this| in the opinion of this Court, n{ order by this Court to restrain the autl^c against the petitioner, on aiiegations of if the petitioner is aggrieved wi|h against him, his remedy is eisewhere) contempt petition. i do not find that th{ passed by this Court. The petition is therefore dismis^ CM^f<rt<ilT1 'RTR'^ft* ^ f^st ^^K ^ ^tf^R^TT^T jetitioner. ^er submits that vide order dated 3/7/09 transfer, which was passed earlier on to pass appropriate orders if the furthefsubmission that salary for the p:his Court observed that the grievance ay of representation to the authorities ^ner submits that the petitioner made ive not decided his representatjon by lirious aiieged misconduct, show cause p^naity has also been imposed. Leamed Ithis amounts to willfui disobedience of ^ourt. specific direction nor was there any ^orities from initiating disciplinary action misconduct. the proceedings of disciplinary action That aspect cannot be taken into the »reis vioiation of the order dated 3/7/09 ed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r^^^