Mohammad Ashraf Reshi vs Mr. Alok Kumar And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 1180 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Ashraf Reshi vs Mr. Alok Kumar And Anr on 27 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                             07
                                             Regular

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT SRINAGAR
                                  CCP(S) No. 443/2022
                                 In SWP No. 1962/2013

Mohammad Ashraf Reshi
                                               ..... Petitioner (s)
                      Through: Mr. Prince Hamza, Adv.

                  V/s
Mr. Alok Kumar and anr.
                                           ..... Respondent(s)
                      Through:   Mr. Hakeem Aman, Dy. AG
Coram:
           Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
                              ORDER

27.05.2025

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present contempt petition

is, seeking implementation of the order dated 05.08.2014 passed

by the learned writ Court whereby the respondents were

directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reviewing of

his suspension order within six weeks.

2. Statement of facts/compliance report has been filed by the

respondents. In the statement of facts/compliance report, it has

been submitted that after passing of the order dated 05.08.2014

by the writ Court, Government Order dated 30.06.2015, was

issued whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired from

service w.e.f 01st July 2015. It has been further submitted that

the aforesaid Government Order came to be challenged by the Page |2

petitioner before this Court in SWP No. 1527/2015 and vide

judgment dated 07.08.2018, the said Government order was

quashed by this Court. LPA as well as SLP against the judgment

dated 07.08.2018 stand dismissed. The statement of

facts/compliance report further indicates that the petitioner

ultimately attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018.

3. In view of the subsequent developments that have taken place in

the present case, the implementation of order dated 05.08.2024

has been rendered superfluous. Therefore, there was no occasion

for the respondents to implement the said order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because

the respondents did not take a decision in accordance with order

of the writ court passed on 05.08.2014, the petitioner is shown

to have been under suspension w.e.f 23.03.2012 to 31.12.2018

and they have not taken any decision with regard to the fate of

the period of suspension. It has been contended that had the

respondents taken a decision in accordance with the order of the

writ Court, the period of suspension of the petitioner would be

much less.

Page |3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be right in his

submission but this aspect of the matter will have to be taken

into account by the competent authority at the time of deciding

the fate of suspension period after the criminal case against the

petitioner comes to an end. However, at this stage, due to the

subsequent developments narrated hereinbefore, implementation

of the order dated 05-08-2014 passed by the writ court has been

rendered superfluous. It appears that respondents/contemnors

have not implemented the said order due to the aforesaid

subsequent developments. Thus, it cannot be stated that the

respondents/contemnors have willfully avoided to implement

the order of the writ Court.

6. For the forgoing reasons, no case for proceeding against the

respondents is made out. The contempt proceedings are closed

and the petition is disposed of.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 27.05.2025 Aasif