This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for the willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 05.08.2009, made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009, in W.P(MD)No.7505 of 2009.
2. By an order, dated 05.08.2009, this Court had granted an order of interim stay of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 15.07.2009, in the W.P(MD)No.7505 of 2009. By the impugned order, dated 15.07.2009, the petitioner had been transferred from Thirumayam to Keeranoor in Pudukkottai District.
3. The petitioner had submitted that inspite of the interim order granted by this Court had not been obeyed and therefore, the respondent had not permitted the petitioner to join duty at Thirumayam and the petitioner was prevented from signing the attendance register. Thus,the respondent had committed contempt by his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 05.08.2009
4. At this stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, Mr.V.Kasinathan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the Petitioner had already handed over the charge, by his letter, dated 22.07.2009. Further, the interim order, dated 05.08.2009, had been passed by this Court, based on the wrong statement made by the petitioner stating that the post from which he had been relieved had not been occupied by any other person. Therefore, no contempt had been committed by the respondent by his issuing a charge-memo, dated 10.08.2009.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had also stated that final orders have been passed by this Court, on 20.10.2009, in W.P(MD)NO.7502 of 2009, directing the petitioner to join duty in the transferred place.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for contempt of Court. However, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge-memo issued to him, on 10.08.2009.
7. In such circumstances, since no further orders are required and necessary in the present contempt petition, the contempt petition stands closed.
vsn To A.Subramaniyan Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thirumayam and Taluk, Pudukkottai District.