TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Despite notice, ADGP does not turn up before Punjab and Haryana High Court

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Advertisement

Chandigarh, September 27

Issued a show-cause notice for contempt proceedings on a previous date of hearing, IPS officer and Gurugram’s former Commissioner of Police Kala Ramachandran — now ADGP (Administration), Panchkula — did not turn up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court today in connection with the hearing of a criminal matter.

Contempt proceedings

Advertisement

Issued a show-cause notice for contempt proceedings on a previous date of hearing, IPS officer and Gurugram’s former Commissioner of Police Kala Ramachandran did not appear before the HC in connection with the hearing of a criminal matter.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said her successor Commissioner of Police Vikas Arora had “no concern to appear before the court” as the notice for contempt proceedings was issued on “specific conduct of individual officer Kala Ramachandran, IPS”.

The assertion came as Justice Moudgil fixed the case for further consideration on October 18. Among other things, the issue before the Bench was whether an officer was under an obligation to appear before the court on the subsequent dates of hearing in the absence of “specific exemption of the officer for personal appearance”.

Justice Moudgil had directed the officer to be present before the court. Her presence was ordered to be recorded in the order dated July 31. There was no specific order to exempt her personal appearance, but she did not appear before the court on the next date of hearing on August 11.

Appearing on the officer’s behalf, her counsel submitted that the officer had complied with the initial order. Since there was no further direction to remain present in person, the officer was under impression that there was no specific direction for her appearance.

Justice Moudgil asserted the officer stopped appearing before the court on her own.

Advertisement
Tags :
GurugramPanchkula
Show comments
Advertisement