IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 COCP No.1895 of 2010 (O&M) Amarjit ...Petitioner Versus Shri S.P.Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) An order of punishment was passed by the Director, Food & Supplies, Punjab against the petitioner on 28.02.2002. In appeal, the Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies, Punjab remanded the case back to the Disciplinary Authority to hold fresh inquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold fresh inquiry, but one Raghbir Singh challenged the order of holding fresh inquiry against him. In a writ petition filed before this Court, the holding of fresh inquiry was stayed vide order dated 12.03.2003. The writ petition filed by Raghbir Singh has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2004. The disciplinary proceedings before the Enquiry Officer were pending, when the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 28.02.2007. It was the said order, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. This Court found that the order passed in appeal, when the matter was remanded back to the Enquiry Officer, is not sustainable. This Court also found that after the Appellate Authority has remanded the COCP No.1895 of 2010 (O&M) matter to the Disciplinary Authority for conducting fresh inquiry, therefore, the Appellate Court could not have entertained the appeal and dismissed the same vide order dated 28.02.2007. Consequently, the order passed in appeal dated 28.02.2007 was set aside. After the aforesaid order was passed, the Appellate Authority has passed a fresh order holding that the order passed by this Court in Raghbir Singh’s case dated 15.03.2004 has the affect of quashing the order of remand passed by the Principal Secretary on 10.02.2003. After returning such finding, the Appellate Authority considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed in Raghbir Singh’s case cannot lead to quashing of an order of remand passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner and that the order dated 10.02.2003 cannot be ignored by inferences when the challenge in the writ petition filed by Raghbir Singh was on a ground personal to him and not depending upon the issues raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that returning the finding that the order of remand stands quashed by virtue of an order passed in Raghbir Singh’s case is, in fact, contemptuous and to defeat the order passed by this Court. In a contempt petition, the contempt Court cannot examine the question, whether the order holding that the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority stands quashed by virtue of an order passed by a writ Court in a writ petition filed by Raghbir Singh. Once an order has been passed by the Appellate Authority returning a finding that the order in appeal stands quashed, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority has acted in violation of the order. It is one thing to say that the order is illegal and another to say that the Appellate Authority is in contempt. Once an 2 COCP No.1895 of 2010 (O&M) order has been passed holding that the order of remand stands quashed, therefore, I do not find that such finding discloses a civil contempt. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. 28.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3