COCP No.1706 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1706 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 18, 2009. Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Ram Niwas, IAS & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri S.S. Pathania, Advocate, for the petitioner. ORDER Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner was removed from service on 12.2.2008 on conclusion of departmental proceedings initiated against him vide charge sheets dated 5.8.2005 and 24.8.2006 by the Disciplinary Authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 17.4.2009 passed in OA No.97/CH/2009 set aside the order dated 12.2.2008 and the respondents were given liberty to give fresh look to the entire set of allegations and take appropriate steps, if deemed necessary, in the circumstances of the case to institute inquiry if permissible under the law. Reinstatement of the petitioner was also ordered and it was held that he will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- COCP No.1706 of 2009 -: 2 :- “In the light of above discussion we feel that the impugned orders dated 12.2.2008 (A-1) passed by the respondent, i.e., Administrator of U.T. of Chandigarh as a disciplinary/appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents will be at liberty to give fresh look to the entire set of allegations and take appropriate steps, if deemed necessary, in the circumstances of the case to institute inquiry, if permissible, under the law. Applicant will be reinstated in service forthwith and he will be entitled to all consequential benefits, as his removal from service has not been found legal and justifiable. Therefore, respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders to this effect within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” The aforesaid order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent-Administration by filing CWP No.11588/CAT of 2009 which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide its order dated 6.8.2009, which reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter at considerable length seeks leave to withdraw this petition provided reasonable time is granted to it to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, keeping in view the observation made by the Tribunal. He urged that the petitioner would require at COCP No.1706 of 2009 -: 3 :- least two weeks time to pass a fresh order on the subject during which time the respondent ought not to precipitate the matter before the Tribunal where he has filed a contempt petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 makes a solemn statement that he will not precipitate the matter in the contempt petition before the Tribunal for a period of two weeks to enable the administration to pass a fresh order on the subject. In the circumstances therefore the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the observation that the administration may, keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal, pass a fresh order on the subject within a period of two weeks from today. In case the needful is not done, the respondent No.1 shall be free to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. No costs.” The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondents have passed two separate orders dated 20.8.2009 (attached as Annexure P-10 and P-11) terminating the services of the petitioner and ordering the stoppage of two annual grade increments respectively. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid orders passed by the respondents amount to contempt of this Court as he was entitled to be reinstated in compliance of the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No.11588/CAT of 2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the COCP No.1706 of 2009 -: 4 :- record of this petition. Vide order dated 17.4.2009, while setting aside the order dated 12.2.2008 of removal of the petitioner from services, the Tribunal has given liberty to the respondents to give fresh look to the entire set of allegations and take appropriate steps if deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case. CWP No.11588/CAT of 2009 challenging the aforesaid order by the Chandigarh Administration was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with leave to pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal. Thus, the orders Annexure P-10 and P-11 passed by the respondents cannot be said to be passed in disobedience to the orders dated 6.8.2009 passed by this Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the aforesaid orders in any manner, he may seek appropriate remedy elsewhere. No merit. Dismissed. September 18, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge