(1.) As urged by the petitioner, all the materials placed on records are considered whether it is a case where a contempt action against the respondents as for deliberate violation that the orders dtd. 5/6/2017 delivered in W.P. (C) No.415 of 2017 read with the order dtd. 11/8/2017 be drawn up or not. By the order under No. Estt (A & E)/Confidential/SO-MISC/2017-18/ dtd. 28/6/2017 the petitioner has been forbidden to work in the office of the respondent with effect from 28/6/2017. Whether this has violated the order of the court dtd. 5/6/2017 and 11/8/2017. For purpose of reference, the text of the entire order is extracted hereunder:
(2.) As stated, the said order dtd. 28/6/2017 has been passed in the wake of the orders passed by this court. For reference, those are extracted hereunder in seria tim.
(3.) The petitioner however has submitted that finally that writ petition being W.P. (C) No.415 of 2017 was disposed of by the common judgment and order dtd. 25/9/2017 along with analogous matters holding that in view of the decision of the apex court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 the writ petition as was filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. But during the life of status quo injunction the said order dtd. 28/6/2017 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply filed by the respondents] has been issued by the Deputy Accountant General of the office of the Accountant General (A and E), Tripura. According to the petitioner, this is willful and deliberate, challenging the authority of this court. From the order dtd. 28/6/2017 it is evident that the order was passed by the respondent No.1 and thus this court has scrutinized his reply only after having perused the reply filed by Mr. R.K. Goyel, the respondent No.2. He has categorically stated in the reply thus: