Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jagdev Singh vs B. A. Jettu And Others on 11 February, 2020
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Sr. No. 3
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CPSW No. 75/2006
Jagdev Singh ...Applicant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- None.
V/s
B. A. Jettu and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- None.
Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
01. By way of this petition, the petitioner has complained of violation of order dated 18th October 2001 passed in SWP No. 698/2000 titled „Jagdev Singh v. State of J&K and others‟.
02. By an order dated 18th October 2001, the following directions had been passed by this Court:
"(i) that copy of punishment order be served on the petitioner and copy of the same be also made available to the counsel for the petitioner.
(ii) that petitioner would report for duty on 1.11.2001 before respondent no.4
(iii) that petitioner would be permitted to join. In case he is not permitted to join, he would put his appearance before Inspector General of Police Jammu.
(iv) that petitioner would start getting his salary with effect from 1.11.2001 or with effect from he produces copy of this order before the respondent-authorities.
(v) that the petitioner is left free to challenge the punishment order which has been passed against him.
Disposed of as such."
2
03. The petitioner had asserted that he had reported for resuming duty on 18th October 2001 and 5th November 2001 when he was not permitted to join.
04. The respondents have filed statement of facts disputing that the petitioner ever so reported.
05. This Court thereafter had passed an order dated 24th August 2002 in COA(C) 118-E/2001 directing that the petitioner would appear before the Chief Judicial Magistate, Poonch, who would depute a Process server to serve copy of order on the Commandant I. R. P. Ist Bn., Surankote, Poonch. The Process server would submit a report regarding whether the petitioner had been permitted to join or not.
06. It is stated that in compliance to this order, the petitioner joined duties on 20th November 2002. Thereafter staying on duty for thirty-five days, the petitioner again absented with effect from 25th December 2002 and despite several messages sent to him through S.H.O. Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, the petitioner refused to receive the messages.
07. The respondents have placed before this Court an order dated 9 th June 2005 passed in COA(SW) 11-E/2003 regarding the salary which the petitioner was entitled to.
08. A notice dated 29th July 2005 was sent through SGCT Jagdesh Kumar No. 248/IR Ist Bn. to the petitioner for resuming duty at the Battalion Headquarters which notice also the petitioner refused to receive. A copy of this notice was sent to the petitioner through registered cover with copies to the Advocate of the petitioner which also have been returned to the petitioner's Battalion. 3
09. In this background, the departmental enquiry was directed to be held against the petitioner.
10. The petitioner's application for recalling and review of the order dated 9th June 2005 was dismissed in terms of order dated 1 st August 2005 passed in Rev(COA) No. 1/2005.
11. LPA(C) No. 26/2005 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 29 th March 2006 and the liberty sought by the petitioner to file fresh contempt petition was granted.
12. The respondents have also disputed that the petitioner had reported at Battalion Headquarters on 29th June 2005.
13. In this background, the present contempt petition is completely misconceived.
14. The contempt notice shall stand discharged and the proceedings in the contempt petition stand closed.
(GITA MITTAL) CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 11.02.2020 Sunita SUNITA KOUL 2020.02.13 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document