BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition(MD) No.369 of 2009 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(MD) No.7505 of 2009 G.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner Vs. A.Subramaniyan Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirumayam and Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondent Prayer Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act,praying this Court to punish the respondent-The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District for his deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Honourable Court made in M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2009 in W.P(MD)No.7505 of 2009, dated 05.08.2009. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Baalasundharam ^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Kasinathan Standing Counsel for TNEB :ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this
Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of
the order passed by this Court, on 05.08.2009, made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009, in
W.P(MD)No.7505 of 2009.
2. By an order, dated 05.08.2009, this Court had granted an order of
interim stay of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated
15.07.2009, in the W.P(MD)No.7505 of 2009. By the impugned order, dated
15.07.2009, the petitioner had been transferred from Thirumayam to Keeranoor in
Pudukkottai District.
3. The petitioner had submitted that inspite of the interim order granted
by this Court had not been obeyed and therefore, the respondent had not
permitted the petitioner to join duty at Thirumayam and the petitioner was
prevented from signing the attendance register. Thus,the respondent had
committed contempt by his willful disobedience of the order passed by this
Court, on 05.08.2009
4. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, Mr.V.Kasinathan,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted
that the Petitioner had already handed over the charge, by his letter, dated
22.07.2009. Further, the interim order, dated 05.08.2009, had been passed by
this Court, based on the wrong statement made by the petitioner stating that the
post from which he had been relieved had not been occupied by any other person.
Therefore, no contempt had been committed by the respondent by his issuing a
charge-memo, dated 10.08.2009.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also
stated that final orders have been passed by this Court, on 20.10.2009, in
W.P(MD)NO.7502 of 2009, directing the petitioner to join duty in the transferred
place.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to
punish the respondent for contempt of Court. However, it is made clear that it
is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge-memo issued to
him, on 10.08.2009.
7. In such circumstances, since no further orders are required and
necessary in the present contempt petition, the contempt petition stands closed.
vsn
To
A.Subramaniyan
Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Thirumayam and Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.