Allahabad High Court
Smrit Kumar Singh vs B. Chandrakala Secretary, Child ... on 18 November, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75617
Court No. - 17
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2197 of 2024
Applicant :- Smrit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- B. Chandrakala Secretary, Child Development And Nutrition Deptt., Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Pandey
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Shri Sandeep Kaur, who is presently holding the officiating charge of Director, Child Development and Nutrition Department, Lucknow, has filed an affidavit of compliance, enclosing therein the punishment order dated 12.11.2024, in compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2024, which is taken on record.
2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that after passing of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 in the writ petition, the report dated 08.06.2023 was submitted by the inquiry officer and had not proved all the charges against the applicant. The Director, Child Development and Nutrition Department, Lucknow passed an Office order dated 26.04.2024 for initiation of re-inquiry and appointed one Smt. Dr. Anupma Shandaliya, Deputy Director, Child Development and Nutrition Department, Lucknow as an inquiry officer.
3. It is further submitted that against the order dated 26.04.2024, the applicant had preferred Writ A No. 5781 of 2024 (Smrit Kumar Singh versus State of U.P and others) which was allowed by judgment and order dated 26.07.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
''9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 26.4.2024, 9.7.2024 and 11.7.2024 (contained as Annexure no. 1) are hereby quashed.
10. However, it is always open for the opposite party no. 2 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner on the point of disagreement on the findings of the inquiry officer and if there is really any cogent and strong reason to conduct the afresh inquiry against the petitioner the same may be done by a speaking and reasoned order indicating such satisfaction by the opposite party no. 2 but those orders must be in conformity with the settled principles of law.
11. In case such orders are passed, it is needless to say that the petitioner would be provided ample opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with law.
12. In view of aforesaid directions, writ petition is allowed.
13. No order as to costs.''
4. It is further submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 06.08.2024 on the point of disagreement of the findings of the inquiry officer, which was replied by the applicant by its letter dated 12.08.2024 and thereafter, a decision has been taken for initiating a fresh inquiry against the applicant as liberty was given by this court by its judgment dated 26.07.2024. After the inquiry, the order of punishment has been passed on 12.11.2024, so the order passed by the writ court has been complied with.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the order has been complied with and now nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present contempt application and for all practical purposes, the present contempt petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
6. Notices, if any, is hereby discharged.
7. The applicant is at liberty to challenge the order dated 12.11.2024 by availing the remedy as may be permissible under the law.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
DiVYa
