DINESH KUMAR Vs. RAJESH KUMAR LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an officer of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research (PGI), is directed against an interlocutory order dated 20.07.2011 (P-1) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The Tribunal by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to enter appearance in person for the purposes of answering the charge of disobedience of the directions issued it earlier in its order dated 27.05.2009 (P-2) while disposing of T.A. No. 39-CH of 2009, transferred CWP No. 19022 of 1995. There is no other order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of contempt Jurisdiction.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the respondent- caveator has raised a preliminary objection at the outset regarding the maintainability of the instant petition. According to learned counsel, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal against an order emerging from exercise of contempt jurisdiction instead of challenging the same by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on para 17 of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Government of A.P., 2001 1 SCC 516. He has also placed reliance on para 3 of another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, 2011 1 SCT 408.

(3.) Faced with the aforesaid preliminary objection, Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner was given time on the last date of hearing. Learned counsel has placed reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Midnapore Peoples Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, 2006 5 SCC 399 and argued that an order passed in 'exercise of contempt jurisdiction punishing a contemnor is alone appealable and the interlocutory order would not be appealable order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity '1971 Act'). In that regard earned counsel has also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob S. Allibhoy, 1996 AIR(SC) 2131.