AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 289 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
This contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the final order dated 28.03.2017 passed by Writ Court in WPSS No. 93 of 2016. By
the said order, writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging his termination from service, was allowed and the termination order was set aside and
respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party has apprised the Court that against the said judgment, Director, Primary Education
had filed SPA No. 386 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.05.2019 in terms of the common judgment rendered in SPA No. 384 of
2017 and SPA No. 385 of 2017.
In SPA No. 384 of 2017 and SPA No. 385 of 2017, Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order passed by Writ Court and remanded the
matter to writ court for decision afresh.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits that after remand of the matter by the Division Bench, writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed
of in terms of the judgment dated 13.02.2019 rendered in SPA No. 543 of 2017. He further submits that in terms of the judgment rendered by learned
Single Judge, petitioner’s services have been terminated after holding regular disciplinary enquiry.
Since regular disciplinary proceedings were held against the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by Writ Court, before terminating his services,
therefore, nothing survives in this contempt petition.
In such view of the matter, contempt petition is closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. This, however, will not
preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum against the termination order.