PARMESHWAR SINGH SEN v. SIDDHARTH KOMAL PARDESHI SECRETARY
CONT/1489/2024 · 2025-01-10
Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46252 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 46252 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:1735
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1489 of 2024 Parmeshwar Singh Sen S/o Late Shri Fandu Singh Sen Aged About 56 Years Incharge Principal (Lecturer) At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Gindola Block Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)/Applicant versus 1 - Siddharth Komal Pardeshi Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 – Divya Umesh Mishra, Director Public Instruction, Directorate, Indravati Bhavan Block-3, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) 3 – Himanshu Bharti, District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (CG) 4 – Jageshwar Verma, Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Gondola, Block Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG) 5 – Kaushik Muni Tripathi, Principal (D/D) Government Higher Secondary School, Lahod, Bloack Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG)
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board 10.01.2025
1. This contempt petition has been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts and read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the respondents have not complied with order and direction issued by this Court in WPS No.6999/2024 dated 05.11.2024. This Court has BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.15 14:44:57 +0530
2 passed following order in para 7 of above mentioned writ petition, which reads as under:-
“7. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the date of order of suspension i.e. 19.06.2024, instead of keeping this writ petition pending seeking reply from respondents, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondents. In the event petitioner submits representation, same shall be considered in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).”
2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide aforesaid order, this Court had directed the respondents to decide representation filed by the applicant afresh in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. He further submits that though representation has been decided and the same has been rejected, but it has not been decided in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) case. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, it cannot be said that order under contempt has been complied with in its true perspective.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that charge sheet has been served to the applicant within 20 days from suspension of the applicant, as such, observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been complied with.
3
4. Having considered the contention put forth by learned counsel for both the parties, in the light of direction issued by this Court in the order under contempt, since fresh representation filed by the applicant has been decided by the respondents authorities vide Order dated 11.12.2024, as such, order under contempt is complied with. Whether the representation filed by the applicant has been decided in the light of order of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), or not is debatable between both the parties, therefore, if the applicant is aggrieved with order dated 11.12.2024, by which, his representation has been rejected, then he take recourse to law for redressal of his grievance.
5. In view of the above, instant contempt petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge Bini