Dr. P.K. Kaundal vs Dr. D.D. Gupta And Ors

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in order dated 8.10.2021, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6352 of 2021, whereby court below having taken note of the administrative decision taken by the government that petitioner as well as respondent No.6 in those proceedings shall remain deployed for fifteen days every month at Dr. Radhakrishnan Govt. Medical College, Hamirpur, disposed of the petition. Since despite there being aforesaid arrangement placed before the Division Bench of this court at the time of passing of order dated 17.9.2021, respondent No.1 Dr. D.D.Gupta, failed to join his duty at Dr.RKGMC, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings for initiation of contempt proceedings.

Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4, whereas respondent No.1 has come present in person. Respondent No.1 as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 17. 9.2021,which is alleged to have been violated states that since there was no direction of any kind to the respondents, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by this Court, respondent No.1 is under obligation, to join at Dr.RKGMC Hamirpur, however, having carefully perused order alleged to have been violated, this Court finds force in submission of respondent No.1 as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General that this Court while disposing of the petition issued no positive direction, rather taking note of some administrative order passed by the department concerned, closed the proceedings and as such, no action, if any of the respondents can be said to be contumacious.

Moreover, this court finds that after issuance of the notice in the instant proceedings, respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted for his having not complied with the directions contained in notification dated 15.9.2021, whereby respondent No.1 was under obligation to serve at Dr.KGMKC, Hamirpur, for fifteen days in a month.

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed and notices are discharged.