AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This contempt application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order and judgment dated 31.1.2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3875 of 2000.
The order and judgment dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure-3) to the contempt application is as under :
Heard counsel for the parties.
Learned standing counsel prays for and is allowed two months time to file counter-affidavit.
List thereafter.
Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 4.10.1999 passed by Respondent No. 2, Annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. The Petitioner shall be continued in service and paid his salary.
Sd. V.M. Sahai, J.
The above order is an interim order by which final relief has been granted.
It has been the constant view of the Court that final relief could not be given at the interim stage. The law has been settled in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Rameshwar Dyal and Another, ; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan, and (2000) 10 SCC 311 .
Power u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be exercised sparingly and only in serious cases. The Court''s jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice, which can be regarded as substantial interference with the due course of justice. The Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon the mere question of its propriety.
The contention of the applicant is that inspite of the fact that the order of suspension was stayed by this Court in which a domestic enquiry was also contemplated, the Respondents have again started enquiry proceedings against him. The case of the applicant does not fall under the category of interference in the administration of justice.
In case the enquiry is completed and it goes against the applicant, the other remedy and recourse is available under the law, the contempt proceedings are not to be allowed to be used as legal recourse by the litigants for bringing pressure in getting the decree executed without taking recourse to the remedy available under the law.
If the Courts stayed the enquiry proceedings, it does not mean that the applicant has been given immunity by the Court and there can be no other enquiry into any serious charges of misconduct in future.
No case of wilful disobedience has been made out by the applicant.
The contempt application fails and is dismissed.