JUDGEMENT
BELA M.TRIVEDI,J. -
(1.)THE present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner appearing party in person for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 9.9.09 passed in SB Civil Writ petition NO. 8611/07 and of the order dated 9.5.11 passed in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 33/10 and also seeking other various reliefs.
(2.)AT the outset it is required to be noted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner against 22 respondents who were not the party to either the said writ petition or the DB Special Appeal. It has been submitted by the petitioner appearing party in person that though the Single Bench vide order dated 9.9.09 in SBCWP No. 8611/07 and the Division Bench vide order dated 9.5.11 in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 33/10 had directed the respondents to produce the documents before the enquiry officer, no such documents were produced and the enquiry officer has submitted the report beyond the time limit given by the Division Bench.
The court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the petitioner appearing party in person. Neither the Single Bench in its order dated 9.9.09 nor the Division Bench in the order dated 9.5.11 had given any direction to the concerned respondents to produce the documents. The relevant part of the order dated 9.5.11 passed by the Division Bench is reproduced as under :-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is for the respondents to substantiate their case before the enquiry officer on the basis of documents available with them. It is for the enquiry officer to consider whether the charges are proved on the basis of the documents produced by the department. The aforesaid question with respect to the original documents on being placed before the enquiry officer, it is for the enquiry officer to decided about it. Consequently we do not find any ground to interfere at this stage in the impugned order passed by the Single Bench in the intra court appeal. Accordingly, this intra-court appeal is hereby dismissed. Let the enquiry officer proceed in the matter and conclude the enquiry as far as possible, as prayed, within four months. "
(3.)IN absence of any specific direction given by the court, it could not be said that the respondents had not complied with the said direction as alleged by the petitioner. So far as the time limit to complete the enquiry is concerned, the Division Bench had directed to complete the enquiry as far as possible within four months. Since there was no outer time limit fixed in the order dated 9.5.11, and since the enquiry officer has already submitted the report, the court does not find any substance in the submission of the petitioner that the report was submitted by the enquiry officer beyond the time limit given by the court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.