Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5129
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
P. Ravindran
Versus
M. Ramasubramanian, The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichirappalli.
Contempt Petition No. 498 of 2009
Decided On : 30-11-2009
For the Petitioner:G. Arockiasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.C. Herold Singh Government Advocate.
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to do so may result in contempt proceedings.
Headnote:
Contempt - Disobedience of Court Order - The court quashed an impugned order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service, with the possibility of further proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The respondent complied with the court's order, leading to the closure of the contempt petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the respondent for willfully disobeying the court's order to reinstate the petitioner in service as Grade-II Police Constable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had complied with the directions issued by the court in its previous order, leading to the closure of the contempt petition.
Issues: Disobedience of Court Order
Ratio Decidendi: The court's order to reinstate the petitioner in service was complied with by the respondent, leading to the closure of the contempt petition.
Final Decision: The contempt petition stands closed with no further orders necessary, and no costs are awarded.
Heard, Mr.G. Arockiasamy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and, Mr.S.C. Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 27. 2009, in W.P.No.(MD) No.4221 of 2006.
3. This Court, by an order, dated 27. 2009, had quashed the impugned order, dated 18. 2004, passed by the second respondent, as confirmed by the first respondent, in his proceedings, dated 13. 2006, and had restored the original punishment passed against the petitioner. This Court had also directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service, as Grade-II Police Constable, forthwith. However, it was open to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichirappalli range, to proceed further against the petitioner, in accordance with law, after complying with the procedural formalities.
4. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had placed before this Court a communication from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichirappalli Range, in C.No.B2/7855/2006, dated 111. 2009, stating that, as per the orders passed by this Court, on 27. 2009, the petitioner had been reinstated in service, as Grade-II Police Constable, in R.O.No.271/2009, in C.No.B2/7855/2006, dated 111. 2009.
5. In such circumstances, since the directions issued by this Court by its order, dated 27. 2009, had been complied with by the respondent, no further orders are necessary in the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.
