RUDRA PAL GUPTA Vs. RAM MURTI MAURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rudra Pal Gupta has preferred this petition for taking action against the opposite party-District Agricultural Officer Allahabad under the Contempt of Courts Act. The allegations are that the order dated 19.2.1991 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7224 of 1991 and another order dated 24.4.91 passed by another learned Single Judge have been intentionally flouted and therefore, contempt of this Court's orders have been committed. When this matter came up before the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil contempt matters the to the view that may be that allegations contained in paragraph No. 41 of the affidavit filed in support of this application would amount to Criminal contempt also and, therefore, he agreed with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that charge should be framed against the opposite party of having committed Criminal contempt also.

(2.) Dr. R. Dwivedi has argued this matter at great length and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit have' been exchanged.

(3.) Three facts may be noted here. Firstly, the petitioner was initially suspended on 29.8.1989 on some charges of embezzlement, etc. He challenged t1 departmental proceedings initiated against him by writ petition No. 981 of 1990 in which, apart from other observations it was said that this Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter under Art. 226 of the Constitution, secondly, the applicant filed another writ petition No. Nil of 1991 and alleged that in the meantime Enquiring Officer has submitted a report in his favour and, therefore, action should be taken by the opposite-party in accordance with the said report of the Enquiring Officer. A learned Single Judge directed that suitable orders by the opposite-party should be passed on the basis of report of the Enquiring Officer dated 5.7.1990 within one month. This order was passed on 19.2.1991.