CLCON/287/2016
2021 Latest Caselaw 420 UK

MCC No. 12813 of 2021
In
CLCON No. 287 of 2016
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Narain Dutt, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Senior Advocate for the respondents.

This Contempt Petition was decided by this Court by the judgment of 21st December, 2020, whereby, while taking cognizance to the decision taken by the Committee, constituted on 28th March, 2016, this Court took a view that after the affirmation of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Committee could not have been constituted to decide the issue a fresh, once the judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Consequently, while parting with the judgment, this Court, has in para 7, observed that let a warning be placed on the service records of the deponent of the affidavit, i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Kishore, who was then holding the charge of General Manager of Opto Electronics Factory, Raipur, District Dehradun.

A Modification Application has been filed by the respondent No.3, herein, on the ground that the reason for making the observation in para 7, may not be sustainable, because as far as he is concerned, at the relevant time, when the committee was constituted on 28th March, 2016, he was not holding the charge of the office of General Manager, because he has joined the said office only on 16th July, 2016, i.e. much thereafter. Further in para 3, he has submitted that decision was, in fact, taken by Mr. A.K. Tiwari, who was then General Manager, who was not made as a party to the Contempt Petition.

Considering the overall facts, as mentioned in the Modification Application, the same would stand allowed and the observation made to the effect that "this warning should be placed on the service records of the respondent" would be treated to be expunged from the order of 21st December, 2020, so far it relates to the present deponent of the Modification Application, i.e. respondent No. 3.

Similarly, in para 5 also, where the onus of the constitution of the Committee has been leveled against Mr. Sanjeev Kishore, i.e. respondent No.3, herein, would stand expunged because at that relevant point of time, for the reason already given, Mr. A.K. Tiwari, was holding the office of the General Manager.

Hence, the said part, where the name of Mr. Sanjeev Kishore has been used, that may be read as Mr. A.K. Tiwari.

Accordingly, the Modification Application stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 23.02.2021 Shiv