Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4283 (MAD)

A. Baby Uma v. Rajagopalan

2013-12-20

K.K.SASIDHARAN, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2013
ORDER 1. This contempt petition discloses a disturbing trend among the public servants that they would obey the Court orders only after issuing notice for their personal appearance by initiating contempt proceedings. 2. The petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. She was provisionally selected to the post based on her performance in various tests conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai. However, she was not given the appointment order. She filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 4661/2009 and thereafter, the Director General of Police passed an order dated 20 September 2004 denying appointment on the ground that the discreet enquiry revealed that her conduct was not satisfactory. The order dated 20 September 2004 was challenged in W.P. No. 19942/2005. 3. Even though the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order, relief was denied to her on the ground that the selection has become final. The said order was challenged in W.A. No. 789/2011. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the intra-court appeal by judgment dated 26 November 2012 and directed the Director General of Police to issue order of appointment to the petitioner on or before 31 December 2012 and depute her for training immediately thereafter. 4. Since the time bound order was not complied with, the petitioner initiated this contempt proceeding. 5. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 18 December 2013, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner would be given appointment shortly. However, she could be sent for training only after the next recruitment, which is yet to be notified. 6. Since the direction given by the Division Bench was very specific, and having convinced that the respondents have not taken any action to comply with the time bound order, we passed the following order on 18 December 2013. “The respondents are directed to report compliance of the order dated 26.11.2012 in W.A. No. 789 of 2011 on 20.12.2013 at 10.30 a.m., failing which the Officers have to appear before this Court at 12. noon. Post on 20.12.2013.” 7. The order dated 18 December 2013 had its own effect. The Director General of Police passed an order on 18 December 2013 appointing the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police and deputed her for training with instruction to join on 20 December 2013. 8. noon. Post on 20.12.2013.” 7. The order dated 18 December 2013 had its own effect. The Director General of Police passed an order on 18 December 2013 appointing the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police and deputed her for training with instruction to join on 20 December 2013. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader by placing reliance on the order dated 18 December 2013, submitted that the respondents have complied with the order passed by the Division Bench. 9. There is no dispute that the respondents have complied with the direction given by the Division Bench, subsequent to our order dated 18 December 2013. However, the fact remains that the compliance was about one year after the date prescribed by the Division Bench. 10. While closing the contempt petition, we make it clear that compliance of the order after the prescribed period for compliance or compliance after initiating contempt proceedings would not automatically absolve the contemnors from contempt proceedings. Each case should be decided on its own facts and circumstances and taking into account the peculiar background facts. 11. The contempt petition is closed with the above observation. Ordered accordingly.