IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 205 Satbir S.S. Rai, The Superintending Hisar and another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) proceedings against the respondents for not complying the directions given vide order dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure P of this Court in FAO No.4125 of 2013 titled as “Satbir and another vs. Sonu and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and it was directed that “….Meanwhile, recovery against the appellants shall remain stayed in case they provide sec Commissioner. The Commissioner will accept the security only after notice to the DHBVNL. is made out against the respondents as, 24.1.2018 (Annexure P the due amount to the satisfaction of the Commissioner COCP-2513-2022 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2513 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision : Versus S.S. Rai, The Superintending Engineer (OP), DHBVNL, Vidhut Nagar Hisar and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying the directions given vide order dated 24.1.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by a of this Court in FAO No.4125 of 2013 titled as “Satbir and another vs. Sonu and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and it was directed “….Meanwhile, recovery against the appellants shall remain stayed in case they provide security for the due amount to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner will accept the security only after notice to the DHBVNL. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no contempt e out against the respondents as, firstly in compliance of the order 24.1.2018 (Annexure P-1) the petitioner has duly deposited the security for the due amount to the satisfaction of the Commissioner 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2513 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-21.08.2025 …..Petitioner Engineer (OP), DHBVNL, Vidhut Nagar …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. Prayer in this petition is for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for not complying the directions given 1) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No.4125 of 2013 titled as “Satbir and another vs. Sonu and others” vide which the appeal was admitted and it was directed “….Meanwhile, recovery against the appellants shall remain stayed in urity for the due amount to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. The Commissioner will accept the security only after notice Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no contempt firstly in compliance of the order 1) the petitioner has duly deposited the security for the due amount to the satisfaction of the Commissioner; which security was VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.22 17.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document accepted by the Commissioner. Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings for recovery of amount of Rs.2,90,889/ 24.1.2018 the said recovery has been kept in abeyance. Moreover, it is nowhere stated in the order dat shall not continue. instructions that till the pendency of the FAO of Rs.2,90,889/ that as part of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, two increments of the petitioner were stopped, however, the same was not part of the order dated 24.1.2018 and therefore constitutes no contempt. contempt petition is hereby their undertaking August 21 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-2513-2022 (O & M) accepted by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that no doubt, Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings very of amount of Rs.2,90,889/-, however, in view 24.1.2018 the said recovery has been kept in abeyance. Moreover, it is nowhere stated in the order dated 24.1.2018 that departmental proceedings shall not continue. Learned counsel for the respondents further undertakes, on instructions that till the pendency of the FAO of Rs.2,90,889/- shall not be recovered from the petitioner that as part of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, two increments of the petitioner were stopped, however, the same was not part of the order dated 24.1.2018 and therefore constitutes no contempt. Heard. In view of the undisputed facts noted above, the present contempt petition is hereby disposed of. The respondents shall abide by their undertaking. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 1, 2025 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 It is further submitted that no doubt, Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner in the departmental proceedings , however, in view of order dated 24.1.2018 the said recovery has been kept in abeyance. Moreover, it is ed 24.1.2018 that departmental proceedings Learned counsel for the respondents further undertakes, on instructions that till the pendency of the FAO-4125-2013 the said amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner. It is clarified that as part of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, two increments of the petitioner were stopped, however, the same was not part of the order dated 24.1.2018 and therefore constitutes no contempt. facts noted above, the present . The respondents shall abide by Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.22 17.35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document