CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 02 UK CK 0039

Harishankar Joshi vs Vikram Chand & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 104 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 316 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

While serving as Senior Branch Manager in District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pithoaragarh, petitioner was put under suspension. He filed Writ

Petition (S/S) No. 321 of 2015 against the suspension order. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 25.02.2016. The order dated 25.02.2016, passed

on the said writ petition, is extracted below:-

“Petitioner is an employee of District Cooperative Bank Limited, Pithoragarh. Petitioner has challenged his suspension order dated 25.02.2015

passed by respondent no. 2 before this Court.

During the pendency of the present writ petition, according to the petitioner his suspension order has been revoked by the Registrar/respondent no.3

vide order dated 02.01.2016.

A withdrawal application (CLMA No.1377 of 2016) has been filed by the petitioner that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.

Permission granted.

Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.â€​

2.

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the final order, passed by this Court, on the basis of statement made by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

3.

In para no. 10 of the Contempt Petition, following pleading has been made:-

“10. That the effect of the withdrawal of the writ petition by the order dated 25.02.2016 would be that keeping in mind the order dated 3.2.2016 by

the appellate authority as the suspension does not subsist and the appeal was accordingly decided quashing the suspension order the consequential

action of reinstatement of the petitioner and payment of service benefits accruing therefrom it ought to have been made available to the petitioner on

passing of the order dated 25.2.2016.â€​

4.

Since no direction has been issued by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2016, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, there is no cause of

action available to the petitioner to maintain this Contempt Petition.

5.

Accordingly, Contempt Petition fails and is dismissed.

6.

Contempt notices issued against respondents are hereby discharged.