MANJULA CHOUDHARY Vs. PRIYANKA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act (for short "the Act") being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.P. No. 505/2013 dated 24 -6 -2015. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that by the aforesaid impugned order the learned Single Judge has held as under: - -

(2.) It is submitted that after holding that the appellant has committed contempt of Court the learned Single Judge has thereafter proceeded to grant opportunity to the appellant either to purge the contempt or to show cause as to why she should not be punished for contempt. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the original petition filed by the respondent W.P. No. 6939/2011, this Court had simply issued a direction to consider the case of the respondent for regularization which direction was upheld and affirmed in W.A. No. 194/2013. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid direction the appellant has considered the case of the respondent for regularization and rejected the same by order dated 2 -9 -2013, it is urged that the Court has gone into the correctness of the order dated 2 -9 -2013 passed by the appellants, examined the correctness of the performance appraisal made by the appellant and has thereafter recorded a finding that the order passed by the appellant amounts to circumventing the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 6939/2011. It is stated that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court in contempt proceedings as the Court could not have gone into the merits of the order passed by the appellant in compliance and thereafter force the appellant under threat of contempt to issue an order of regularization in favour of the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent per contra at the very outset objects to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that no order of punishment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in C.P. No. 505/2013 which is still pending adjudication and in such circumstances, the appeal under Sec. 19 of the Act, is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has committed contempt of this Court in rejecting the claim for regularization made by the respondent and therefore there is no ground to entertain this appeal which may be dismissed.