Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

07. In compliance to the aforesaid direction dated 4th of May, 2007 passed by this Court, the above titled Robkar was framed and Rule was issued against the Respondent by the Registry, thereby asking the Respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with and punished for civil Contempt committed by him.

08. Pursuant to notice having been issued by this Court, the Respondent filed the detailed Reply to the Robkar, inter alia, asserting therein that Mr Fayaz was not qualified to be a Lecturer in the subject of Statistics in the Department of Social Preventive Medicine, whereas Mr Bhat was qualified for the said post, but still, in order to avoid the controversy and to show the compliance of the Court orders and the administrative directions, the Respondent allowed Mr Fayaz to continue as Lecturer, Statistics in the Department of Social Preventive Medicine and Mr Bhat was retained in the same Department of Social Preventive Medicine on the post of Lecturer, Sociology, lying vacant for a pretty long time. This is stated to have been done only to show the compliance of the Court orders and the administrative directions.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the pleadings on record.

11. From the perusal of the pleadings on record, it appears that the Respondent was faced with a dilemma on the issue of posting of both Mr Bhat and Mr Fayaz, inasmuch as, there was multiple litigation having been initiated by both the aforesaid persons. The Respondent, in his Reply filed to the present Robkar, has also referred to Order dated 26 th of July, 2007 passed by this Court in a Writ Petition filed by Mr Bhat, being SWP No. 1024/2007, wherein a direction was issued to allow the Petitioner/ Mr Bhat CPC No. 01/2010 in to continue till the next date of hearing before the Bench. The Respondent appears to have got confused as to which direction of the Court he had to implement. That apart, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent has since attained the age of superannuation and has tendered an unconditional apology in the event his conduct has resulted in any alleged disobedience/ violation of any Court order. The Respondent, as per the learned Counsel, has always tried to uphold the majesty of law by implementing the orders passed by the Court at all times.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis, more particularly the unconditional apology having been tendered by the Respondent through his Counsel, the proceedings initiated against the Respondent by way of the present Robkar are, accordingly, dropped.

13. Disposed of.

(M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SRINAGAR November 6th, 2023 "TAHIR"

               i.   Whether the Order is speaking?     Yes.
              ii.   Whether the Order is reporting?    Yes.