COCP No.837 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.837 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 26, 2009. J.S. Rathore ...Petitioner(s) v. Prof. S.S. Bari & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Petitioner in person. Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the directions dated 26.11.2008 passed in CWP No.964 of 2005 have not been complied with by the respondents. In reply to the show cause notice issued by this Court, affidavit of Prof. S.S. Bari, Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh has been filed. Along with this affidavit, the orders dated 24.8.2009 (Annexure R-1) and 25.8.2009 (Annexure R-2) and a photocopy of the cheque amounting to Rs.6,26,560/- drawn in the name of the petitioner have been placed on record. In the reply, it has been submitted that in compliance of the orders dated 26.11.2008, the order Annexure R-1 was passed wherein it has been ordered to pay to the petitioner the subsistence allowance for the period with effect from 31.12.2004 till date and that the University has decided to move an application for extension of time for initiation of regular disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner before this Court and meanwhile COCP No.837 of 2009 -: 2 :- reinstatement of the petitioner has been ordered subject to the initiation of regular disciplinary inquiry and subject to outcome of such inquiry against him and further that in case the petitioner is exonerated in the inquiry, the balance 25% of his salary will be paid to him but in case he is found guilty, the question of payment or non-payment of this balance amount shall be decided by the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid reply filed by the respondents, I am of the view that the substantial compliance of this Court's order has been made by the respondents and therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to contest the application, if any, filed by the University for extension of time to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to seek any other appropriate relief in accordance with law. August 26, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge