R.Kumar Gandhi, v. A.Annadurai And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN R.Kumar Gandhi ... Petitioner Vs

1. A.Annadurai The Managing Director, Head Office, No. 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

2. M.Radhakrishnan The General Manager (Admn.), Head Office, No. 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

3. S.Jothibasu The Regional Manager, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram.

1/6

4. V.Kandeepan The Regional Manager, Tuticorin Region, Tuticorin.

... Respondents Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying to punish the respondents herein for having not only violated but also disobeyed the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 2748 of 2015 dated 16.06.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Malaichamy For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition is prosecuted for failure of the Respondents to comply with the order dated 16.06.2023 in W.P. No. 2748 of 2015.

2. Mr. C.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the respondents, has filed an affidavit today. The affidavit sets out the qualifications of the Enquiry Officer, as well as the fact that the list of documents and witnesses relied 2/6

upon by the Management was handed over to the contempt petitioner on 06.09.2024. The affidavit further states that, since the contempt petitioner refused to receive the documents, they were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due on 13.09.2024.Mr. R.Malaichamy states these documents have been received Mr. C.Selvaraj states that the Management is going to rely upon any other documents other than those that have been sent by the contempt petitioner.

3. I notice that the Enquiry Officer is a legally qualified person and the presenting officer is also in-charge of the Vigilance Department. Mr. R.Malaichamy states that the petitioner does not have any knowledge of law and, therefore, he should be permitted to have the assistance of an Advocate.

4. Mr. C.Selvaraj assures this Court that if an application is filed before the Enquiry Officer seeking representation through an Advocate, it will be positively considered. He adds the witnesses required by the contempt petitioner cannot be produced, as Management considers them 3/6

unessential for proving their case. Additionally, he states that it is open to the contempt petitioner to summon them as defence witnesses. As the requirements outlined in Order W.P.No.2748 of 2015, dated 16.06.2023, have been complied with, though with some delay, I am inclined to close this contempt petition.

5. In view of the same, this contempt petition is closed. No costs. 08.11.2024 Index:Yes/No kv 4/6

To

1. The Managing Director, Head Office, No. 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

2. The General Manager (Admn.), Head Office, No. 12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

3. The Regional Manager, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram.

4. The Regional Manager, Tuticorin Region, Tuticorin.

5/6

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

kv 08.11.2024 6/6