Shri Abdul Laish v. Shri K.Murugan

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** CPAN/43/2023 Shri Abdul Laish Vs.

Shri K.Murugan Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Kishore Datta, AG, Mr. Vivekandna Bose Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Soham De Dhara Mr. Ratikanta Pal ... for the Contemnor February 23, 2024 [SR] Item No.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. By an order dated 22.09.2022 passed by a Single Bench in WPA/131/2022, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to defend his case by a retired government servant of his choice. It was expected that the disciplinary proceeding should be completed as early as possible. The Administration filed an appeal against such order. By an order dated 21.11.

2022, the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the impugned order and directed that the appellantbank should be free to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of the said order. Initially, there was a delay in providing defence assistant. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded in time as prescribed by the Division Bench. In fact, it is not clear from the purported compliance report dated 02.02.2024, whether the disciplinary proceeding has at all been fully concluded.

The learned senior counsel representing the alleged contemnor relies on the compliance report, especially the memo dated 29.01.2024 and submits that the order passed by this Court has already been complied with. First, a defence assistant was provided for and thereafter, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded, albeit approximately within a year from the date of the order passed by the Division Bench. Incidentally, another Division Bench had passed an order in the contempt proceeding extending the time to conclude the disciplinary proceeding.

It appears that the prime grievance of the petitioner that he should be provided with defence assistant had already been redressed by the alleged contemnor. Pursuant to directions passed by this Court to conclude the proceeding expeditiously, the departmental proceeding has purportedly been concluded by an order dated 29.01.2024.

Therefore, cause for contempt no more survives. Accordingly, the application for contempt is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

Since affidavits have not been called for, the allegations contained in the contempt petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Jay Sengupta, J. ) ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )