IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con Case(C) No. 1328 of 2007(S)
1. P.I.BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ITHACK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.K.ABROT, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT
... Respondent
2. R.VENKATESWARAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :S.C. FOR SYNDICATE BANK-M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/09/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------
Cont.Case (C)No.1328 of 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
A dismissed employee of the respondent Bank is before us in this
contempt petition, inter alia, alleging that the respondents have disobeyed the
orders and directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1766
of 2002 dated 26th July, 2005. Therefore, a request is made in the contempt
petition to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondents
and punish them for their wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders and
directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ appeal.
(2) The Bank aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in O.P.No.13836 of 1997 has filed appeal before this Court in
W.A.No.1766 of 2002. A Bench of this Court by its order dated 26th July, 2005
has modified the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. In that they
have stated as under:
“2. It is contended that there is no violation of principles of
natural justice. But in the light of conviction and sentence,
necessarily he has to face further dismissal from service and it is
only appropriate that the dismissal already ordered be converted
as a dismissal based on such conviction; and ofcourse in case
the appeal against conviction is modified or annulled, the Bank
will be free to initiate further action either as directed by the
learned single Judge or in terms of clause 11 of the Syndicate
Officer Bank Employees (discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976.”
(3) A perusal of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court
would clearly demonstrate that there is no positive direction by this Court to the
respondent Bank to pay arrears of salary to the complainant for the period from
1996 till he was convicted by a criminal court in the year 1999. In the absence
Cont.Case (C)No.1328/2007
2
of a positive direction by this Court, it cannot be said that the Bank has
committed any contempt which would come within the definition of Section 2(b)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(4) In view of the above, we do not intend to entertain this contempt
petition. Accordingly, the petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected
without reference to the respondent.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.T.SANKARAN)
JUDGE
vns