Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2610 (HP)

Mahinder Singh v. Prabodh Saxena

2016-12-07

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. It is stated at the Bar that Shri P. Mitra, Chief Secretary, to the Government of H.P., has retired and his successor has taken over in his place. We deem it proper to substitute Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of H.P. and Director General of Police, H.P. as party respondents in this petition in place of Sh. P.Mitra, Chief Secretary to the Government of HP, shall figure as respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. Petitioner to file fresh memo of parties within one week. 2. Issue notice to the newly substituted respondents. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General waives notice on behalf of the said respondents. 3. Petitioner, by the medium of this Contempt Petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for drawing contempt against the respondents in terms of the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for short “the Act.” 4. It is specifically averred in the contempt petition that the respondents have not complied with the directions contained in the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2015, in CWP No. 9954 of 2011, titled Mahinder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh. 5. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he has earned the judgment dated 30.4.2015 in CWP No. 9954 of 2011 made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for placement as Superintendent of Police. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the said judgment herein. “8.In view of the settled position, this Court is left with no option but to allow the petition. Ordered accordingly. The respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for placement as Superintendent of Police within a period of six weeks and in case the petitioner is found entitled for such placement, he shall be released and given all actual consequential-benefits within another period of eight weeks. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.” 6. Respondents have filed the reply and have stated that they have invoked the sealed cover procedure and the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment have been fully complied with, in letter and spirit. 7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs.” 6. Respondents have filed the reply and have stated that they have invoked the sealed cover procedure and the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment have been fully complied with, in letter and spirit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is utter disregard to the Court directions and respondents are in breach. Learned Single Judge has categorically held that the action of respondents was not in accordance with law and directed them to consider the case of the petitioner for placement as Superintendent of Police and release all actual consequential benefits. Thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of respondents at this stage that the enquiry is pending against the petitioner and he is facing trial in FIR No. 13/2009. At the relevant point of time, petitioner had neither been served with the memo of charge in the departmental inquiry nor was charge-sheeted in the criminal case. 8. Having said so, it appears that the respondents are in breach, are directed to appear in person and explain why they be not dealt with in terms of the provisions of the Act. 9. In the meantime, respondents to comply with the Court directions contained in the judgment dated 30.4.2015 in CWP No. 9954 of 2011, and report compliance. List on 5th January, 2017.