1 / 3 2026:CGHC:14289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 209 of 2026 Nishant Fuljhele S/o Mr. Keshav Rao Phuljhele Aged About 30 Years R/o Mahra Basti, R.D.A. Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Dr. Sanjeev Shukla Inspector General, Bilaspur Range, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 25/03/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 29.10.2025 passed in WPCR No.554 of 2025 by Division Bench of this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 29.10.2025, Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed that Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.03.27 14:38:39 +0530 2 / 3 till pendency of WPCR No.554 of 2025, State authority shall not proceed with the matter. He contended that even after passing of order and getting knowledge, respondent authority has proceeded with the departmental enquiry against the officials based on FIR lodged by petitioner. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the departmental enquiry proceeding, petitioner is not made as witness, and if enquiry proceeding is concluded holding that no case is made out against delinquent employee, then it will affect the criminal case lodged against the accused persons. Action of respondent authority is in breach of the order passed in WPCR filed by petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has submitted reply supported with an affidavit stating therein that due to misunderstanding, enquiry proceedings have been started. She submits that final order dated 02.01.2026 has not been passed willfully in disregard to the order passed by this Court. She also submits that respondent authority has further passed order on 23.02.2026 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 02.01.2026. It is also contention of learned counsel for the respondent that thereafter respondent has further recalled the order dated 02.01.2026 vide order dated 12.03.2026. The aforementioned proceeding is resulted due to an inadvertent mistake and it is not deliberate attempt for which respondent is tendering unconditional apology. 4. When question is posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to about date of conclusion of enquiry proceeding, he fairly submits that according to his instructions, departmental enquiry proceeding initiated against delinquent employee was concluded on 15.09.2025. 3 / 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 6. Order passed in WPCR is dated 29.10.2025 which is after conclusion of enquiry proceeding. Order passed in WPCR is a directive issued to the State authority not to proceed with the matter thereafter. Though the final order dated 02.01.2026 imposing punishment passed by the authority is subsequent to order dated 29.10.2025, which has been stayed. After coming to their knowledge that they have committed mistake, have recalled the order. Respondent has further in his reply has submitted unconditional apology. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, unconditional apology rendered by respondent is accepted and as respondent authority has recalled the order of punishment dated 02.01.2026, vide order dated 12.03.2026 , I do not find any good ground to continue with this contempt petition any further. 8. Accordingly, contempt proceeding initiated against respondent is hereby dropped. Notice issued to respondent stand discharged. 9. Contempt Petition is closed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen