IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.19851 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 09, 2010 INDERJIT SINGH BUTTER ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Dr. AR Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP 5673 of 2009 (Inderjit Singh Butter v. State of Punjab and others) with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing order of suspension. Further prayer made was for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. 2. Considering the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, the order of suspension was not quashed, however, it was held that the Civil Writ Petition No.19851 of 2010 2 petitioner was entitled to a decision in regard to the claim made in representation dated 7.8.2008. It appears that no decision was taken and, therefore, the petitioner filed COCP 1728 of 2010 (Inderjit Singh Butter v. State of Punjab and others). The Contempt of Court Petition has been dismissed vide order dated 6.9.2010 by virtue of the following order:- “This Court on 26.10.2009 found that the petitioner is entitled to decision in regard to claim made by the petitioner in the representation dated 07.08.2008 in respect of the order of suspension. The petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 02.12.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the consequential order of payment of salary has not been passed, therefore, the respondents are in contempt, as such was the claim in the representation. A perusal of the order passed by this Court shows that an FIR against the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is pending. In view of the pendency of a criminal trial against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner cannot claim any arrears of salary except the entitlement of suspension allowance in terms of the Rules. In view of the above, I do not find that any case for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents is made out. Dismissed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after decision of the contempt petition, another representation has been filed, which is required to be decided. 4. It is the admitted case that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case lodged for commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the Civil Writ Petition No.19851 of 2010 3 writ petition. 6. Dismissed as withdrawn. November 09, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?