Allahabad High Court
Jokhoo Prasad Tripathi vs Arvind Kumar,Prin.Secy.Dept Of ... on 11 September, 2019
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 960 of 2019 Applicant :- Jokhoo Prasad Tripathi Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar,Prin.Secy.Dept Of Agriculture,Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. As it comes out, the petitioner, who was working as Director, Agriculture, Government of U.P., filed Writ Petition No. 9353 (M/B) of 2012, challenging reopening of vigilance enquiry against him, on the basis of a complaint filed in the year 1993. Initially, the Government closed the vigilance enquiry in the year 2006. However, the vigilance enquiry was reopened in the year 2010 and the petitioner got superannuated in the year 2011. Vide interim order dated 22.11.2012 further proceedings pursuant to reopening of the vigilance enquiry was stayed on the ground that seventeen years had gone-by since the date of the complaint allegedly made by an M.L.A., who disowned the same.
3. This contempt petition has been filed, alleging that despite the interim order dated 22.11.2012, staying further proceedings pursuant to reopening of vigilance enquiry, which was got initiated on the basis of a complaint made by an M.L.A. in the 1993, the vigilance enquiry is still proceeding against the petitioner.
4. Pursuant to issuance of contempt notice, short counter affidavit sworn in by Mr. Ram Kishun, Superintendent of Police, U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow has been filed, which is on record.
In the said short counter affidavit, it has been stated that the enquiry, which was initiated on a complaint of an M.L.A. in the year 1993, has been suspended pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 22.11.2012. It has been further stated that on the basis of the subsequent complaints made by Mr. Nirmal Verma and Mr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma dated 10.08.2008, 26.10.2008 and 30.07.2008, Enquiry No. 53 of 2019 has been initiated against the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel, representing the contemnors-respondents, submits that there is no interim order in respect of the Enquiry No. 53 of 2010 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the interim order dated 22.11.2012 whereby the vigilance enquiry, on the basis of initial complaint of an M.L.A. made in the year 1993, was stayed by this Court.
6. In view of the above and since there is no interim order, staying the subsequent vigilance enquiry, this contempt petition is dismissed being misconceived. However, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent Enquiry No.53 of 2010, in accordance with law, if he is so advised.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.] Order Date :- 11.9.2019 MVS/-