Chattisgarh High Court
Hitesh Nag vs Dr. M. Geeta on 29 April, 2022
Bench: P. Sam Koshy, Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CONT No. 285 of 2021
Hitesh Nag S/o Shri Jitendra Nag, Aged About 36 Years Posted as Senior Horticulture
Development Officer, Directorate, Naya Raipur (CG), R/o Manorath Manvi Vihar,
Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Dr. M. Geeta, Aged About 52 Years, Commissioner Agriculture Production Agriculture
Development & Farmer Welfare & Biotechnology Department, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
Per, Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge
29/04/2022
1. Heard.
2. This instant contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance willful disobedience of the order dated 25.02.2021 passed in WA No.50/2021 arising out of an order of transfer dated 23.01.2021 whereby the petitioner, who was transfered from the Directorate of Horticulture, Raipur to Sukma. The petitioner has initially preferred writ petition ie WPS No.888/2021 which came to be disposed of on 09.02.2021 whereby the only relief granted was to prefer representation and the same was to be decided within period of 45 days. The learned Single Bench while deciding writ petition has not granted any interim protection to the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, so far as not granting interim protection, petitioner has challenged the same by way of an appeal ie WA No.50/2021. Writ appeal stood decided on 25.02.2021 directing the respondents to decide representation of petitioner on its own merits within a period of three weeks and till then 'Status Quo' is directed to be maintained with respect to the posting of appellant, this is whole dispute arises thereafter. According to the petitioner inspite of an order of 'Status Quo' by the Division Bench, respondent refused to grant joining, which led to filing of present contempt 2 petition.
4. Upon notice, respondents entered their appearance, and alongwith their reply filed Annexure R-1, the document dated 29.01.2021, whereby it has been shown that on 29.01.2021 itself the petitioner stood relieved from his office pursuant to the order of transfer dated 23.01.2021.
5. Stand of the respondent was that petitioner stood relieved on 29.01.2021 and 'status quo' order would mean that he would not be relieved, if not relieved as on the date of order. It is the further contention of the State Counsel that thereafter representation of the petitioner itself was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2021. Rejection of representation has been further challenged by the petitioner by way of separate writ petition ie WPS No.2323/2021 and there is some interim protection, which the petitioner has obtained in the said writ petition also, and the said writ petition is still pending consideration before the High Court.
6. Documents Annexure R/1 is being disputed by counsel for the applicant stating that it is an anti-dated document. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the writ petition itself, at the first instance, was disposed of on 09.02.2021 ie much after Annexure R-1 was passed. So also the writ appeal was decided on 25.02.2021 even at that stage it was not informed to the Court that the petitioner stood already relieved on 29.01.2021. Hence, it has to be presumed that the order has been issued only to circumvent the order of status quo passed by the Division Bench. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after disposal of writ appeal when representation was finally decided on 19.03.2021 even in that order the authorities are totally silent so far as petitioner getting relieved on 29.01.2021. On these grounds it has to be presumed that the document is an anti-dated document, so as to avoid contempt proceedings, initiated by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that perusal of document Annexure R-1 and comparing the same with Annexure C-5, which has been brought by the petitioner by way of a rejoinder, would itself show that it is not an anti- dated document as the dispatch number would show that the document Annexure R-1 bears dispatch number, preceding the dispatch number reflected in Annexure C-5 3 dated 30.01.2021. More over it is the contention of the respondent that merely because counsel representing the respondents have not informed the Court in respect of relieving order having been passed on 29.01.2021 by itself would not be sufficient to reach to a conclusion that document Annexure R-1 is an anti dated document, particularly when the dispatch numbers of order passed on 29.01.2021 and 30.01.2021, give a strong indication that it was the document dated 29.01.2021 which was passed earlier to the document dated 30.01.2021. As regard the contention of the petitioner drawing attention towards Annexure C-6, dated 30.01.2021 is concerned, that again is only a show-cause- notice issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation so far as the conduct of the petitioner in remaining absent unauthorisedly for quite some time. There was no necessity to make a reference of the reliving order in the said show-cause-notice. The issuance of the show-cause-notice without referring to the order of relieving dated 29.01.2021 also cannot be construed as if even on 30.01.2021, the petitioner was not relieved.
8. As initiation under Annexure C-6 was in a different contractual background, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to consider and decide the represention and meanwhile to maintain status quo. Respondent has now decided the representation on 19.03.2021, the decision on said representation has already been subjected to challenge in another set of writ petition, which is still pending consideration before this Court.
9. Under the given factual backdrop, it would not be justified for this Court to initiate contempt against the respondent drawing an inference that the document being anti- dated. The allegations, being of factual nature, would have to be tested in an appropriate proceeding which the petitioner already availing writ jurisdiction by filing subsequent writ petition.
10.We are therefore of the view that no contempt as such is made out. The Contempt petition stands disposed off, the respondent stands discharged of the contempt notice.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE JUDGE
J/-