IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4082 of 2011 with CWP No. 5647 of 2010. Date of Decision : September 6 , 2011 1. CWP No. 4082 of 2011 Kalpna Grover Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents 2. CWP No. 5647 of 2010 Kalpna Grover Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP No. 4082 of 2011 and for respondent No. 1 in CWP No. 5647 of 2010. Mr. S. D. Gill, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 4082 of 2011 and for respondents No. 2 and 3 in CWP No. 5647 of 2010. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. In contemplation of inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of order dated 4.8.2010. The same was challenged by her in CWP No. 5647 2 of 2010. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and she was served with the memorandum dated 20.1.2011 enclosing articles of charges. The same is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 4082 of 2011. The challenge is primarily on the ground that proceedings before the Public Information Officer appointed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the Act) are not judicial proceedings and consequently provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act would not apply. The articles of charges also cover this aspect. 2. On 13.6.2011, this Court directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit inter alia explaining as to how proceedings before the Public Information Officer could be described as proceedings in the “Court” of Public Information Officer and how provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would apply in respect thereto. 3. In terms of affidavit dated 18.8.2011, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has clarified that proceedings before the Public Information Officer under the Act are not judicial proceedings and as such provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would not apply. It also stands clarified that order of suspension of the petitioner now stands revoked by the competent authority in terms of order dated 8.7.2011. 4. As such, no other and further orders are required to be passed in the present petitions, save and except that, keeping in view the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of 3 Himachal Pradesh disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall continue with respect to the surviving charges. Parties shall fully cooperate and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the inquiry proceedings expeditiously. 5. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 6, 2011 (PK)