IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.13902 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.3.2011 Chander Prabha Verma ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.B.Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Babbar Bhan, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issue of contempt notice issued to respondent No.2. Reply has also been filed. The reason for the issuance of notice of contempt is reflected in the order of this Court dated 24.9.2009. An order was passed protecting the services of the petitioner on 9.9.2009. The respondents passed an order on 9/10.9.2009 giving rise to an impression that they did so in order to defeat the orders of this Court. Upon perusal of the reply and the record which has been produced before this Court it transpires that the petitioner, who was issued a show cause notice on C.W.P.No.13902 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 26.8.2009 was required to submit her reply within 15 days thereof, which period, if calculated loosely would have expired on 10.9.2009. But on 8/9.9.2009 the petitioner moved an application seeking extension of time. The representation of 8.9.2009 was received by the respondents on 9.9.2009, which is evident from the perusal of the record. Likewise, the representation submitted by the petitioner on 9.9.2009 was received by the respondents on 10.9.2009, which is also evident from the original file produced before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to believe that the order of 9.9.2009 passed by this Court has been deliberately ignored by the respondents in order to overreach the court and to defeat its order. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, stated that there was no intention to do so and the order dated 9.9.2009 was not to their knowledge. A reference was made to the record to say that the representation itself was submitted by the petitioner on 10.9.2009, which was dated 9.9.2009, and even in this representation there is no reference to the order passed by this Court and the possibility of the respondents not knowing about the said order can thus be inferred from the sequence of the events. Holding a person liable for contempt is a serious matter as it visits him with grave consequences. A person can be proceeded against for violating the orders of the Court if there is a complete visibility of his knowledge and intention to do so. A conclusion of this sort has to be manifestly visible from the set of sequential facts and mere remote and inferential conclusion cannot form the basis of C.W.P.No.13902 of 2009 (O&M) -3- proceeding against a person under the Contempt of Courts Act. If the facts of the case are to be seen, it cannot be said with certainty that respondent No.2 was aware of the order so as to say that he made an attempt to wilfully disobey the same. The rule against the respondent No.2 is thus discharged. In so far as the merits of the case are to be seen, the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the show cause notice issued to her. The Court had intervened and protected her by ordering that her services be not dispensed with. Even after passing of the order dated 9/10.9.2009 by the respondents the Court intervened to order for continuation in service. By virtue of these orders the petitioner continued to be in service and against the order of removal of her services she has filed a statutory appeal which is pending for 30.3.2011. This fact is admitted by both, the petitioner and the respondents. Having regard to the aforesaid, when the show cause notice, of which the petitioner was aggrieved, has fructified into an order of removal, which order is under challenge before the competent authority, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such, however, with a direction that the competent authority before whom the appeal is pending shall dispose of the same by hearing the petitioner on 30.3.2011 itself. If, in any eventuality, the petitioner is precluded from participating in the proceedings for some reasons, the appellate authority may consider the request for postponement of the hearing on one occasion. In the eventuality of the appellate authority C.W.P.No.13902 of 2009 (O&M) -4- passing an adverse order against the petitioner, the said order shall be held in abeyance for a period of 15 days so as to enable her to seek her remedy against the same. The petition stands disposed of. 15.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss