Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Union Of India vs Om Prakash Sharma on 26 August, 2014

                                                                1




           Union of India and another Vs. Om Prakash Sharma.




                        Con. C. No. 1197/13
26/08/14
      Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Complaining disobedience of an order and undertaking
given by the respondent before the Division Bench of this

Court in a proceeding held in W. P. (s) No. 3334/04 on 13.05.05, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt.

Respondent was working in the railway establishment and it seems that he was in the habit of threatening the Railway Administration by giving notices with regard to burning of effigies of ministers and higher dignitaries. For this act, he was issued with a charge-sheet and, thereafter, some punishment of reversion was imposed upon him.

The punishment was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, thereafter, the matter came to this Court in W. P. (s) No. 3334/04. When the matter was being heard on the said date, it seems that on behalf of the respondent employee, an undertaking was given on an affidavit by him in which he said that he will not threaten to burn any effigy of any authority and will not participate in any illegal things.

Contending that inspite of the above undertaking, respondent again continued with the same misconduct and had issued a threat in his letter vide Annexure C-2 dated 10.09.11, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt.

On notice being issued, respondent has filed his reply 2 Union of India and another Vs. Om Prakash Sharma.

to the contempt petition and it is seen from this reply that he had already retired on 30.06.13 and is no more in service.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, we do not deem it appropriate now after retirement of the employee to proceed further in the matter or take any action for contempt against him.

Accordingly, we discharge the respondent from the proceedings and close the same without passing any orders on contempt.

(Rajendra Menon)                                (Alok Verma)
   JUDGE                                          JUDGE
Vy*