Pawan Kumar vs Puneet Goel

Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A):-Heard counsel for both sides for some time.

Learned counsel for the applicant, Ms.Priyanka Bhardwaj, stated that as per order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2017, it was directed that no penalty order shall be passed unless and until the representation is decided by the respondents. Despite that the applicant has been served with a penalty order, while his representation dated 3.10.2017 was still pending.

On the other hand, Mr. P.K.Gupta, the leaned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the bench that the order of penalty had already been issued by the respondents on 04.10.2017 and that the applicant failed to bring it to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the order on 13. 10.2017. She stated that the applicant deliberately did not receive the office order dated 04.10.2017 (before 17. 10.2017) though he was informed (repeatedly) telephonically by the Asstt. Labour Welfare Department about the issuance of the said order asking him to receive the same physically. Since the applicant absented himself unauthorisedly w.e.f. 10.10.2017, therefore, the said order could be served upon him only on 17.10.2017 in the office of the Labour Welfare Department.

On going through the facts, we feel that no case of contempt can be made out against the respondents since the office order dated 04.10.2017 removing the applicant from service had been issued prior to Tribunal's directions dated 13.10.2017.

In view of the above, we are satisfied that nothing survives in this CP. The same is accordingly closed. Accordingly, notices issued to the respondents are discharged.