S RAJAMANICKAM Vs. HAND RAJ VARMA, I A S , SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.16851 of 2010 and the respondent in W.A.No.414 of 2012. The petitioner herein filed the said writ petition praying for quashment of the proceedings of the third respondent, namely the District Collector, Karur District dated 28.07.2003 and the proceedings of the second respondent, namely the Director of Rural Development, Chennai-15 and the Government Letter dated 14.05.2007, issued by the first respondent, namely the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, Chennai-9 and quash the same and for a consequential direction that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from the date of reversion in the Karur District Rural Development Unit and salary from the date of the order with all benefits such as promotion on par with junior, which has been withheld on account of the penalties together with monetary benefits and disburse all the arrears within a short date that may be fixed by this Court.

(2.) The writ petition, after contest, came to be allowed as prayed for by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The official respondents in the writ petition, aggrieved by the allowing of the same, filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.414 of 2012 and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and one of us [M.Sathyanarayanan, J.] has considered the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants and also noted the fact that criminal prosecution was also launched against the writ petitioner and awarding benefit of doubt, he was acquitted and the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State was also dismissed by this Court and having gone through the contents of the judgment, had also observed that he was acquitted honourably for want of evidence. The Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the writ appeal, vide judgment dated 19.07.2013, confirming the order passed in the writ petition and directed the appellants therein to comply with the order passed in the writ petition within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

(3.) An order of reinstatement dated 03.10.2013 was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, alleging that full compliance of the order have not been done, came forward with this Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition was entertained and notices were ordered.