@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.@mdashWe do not propose to place premium in favour of persons who were found to be misconducting or corrupt by the employer and against whom the employer held a disciplinary proceedings, found the person guilty in accordance with the procedure governing the employment of the person and who had been dismissed from service. In a statutory appeal as provided under the regulations governing the employee, the employee having tried his hand and such appeal also having been dismissed, has approached this court invoking writ jurisdiction only for the reason that the accused - employer was a Statutory Corporation and therefore to be treated on par with the State.
2. We find that while no opportunity had been given to the accused - employer to place its version before the court, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with certain directions.
3. We are not able to make out much out of the order passed in the writ petition for initiating contempt proceedings to the detriment of the respondent - employer.
4. However, after issue of notice, the respondents -accused who are represented by Sri. S.V. Prakash, learned counsel, submits that the accused have issued a second show cause notice dated 26.12.2011 and has fixed an inquiry date. Be that, as it may, it is open to the employer to proceed further.
5. We do not find any occasion at all to keep this contempt petition on board and proceed further in contempt jurisdiction. Contempt petition is dismissed.
