The initiation of proceedings for contempt should take place within a period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt, as mandated by S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

The complainant has filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) praying that necessary action may be taken against the respondent for contempt of this court as per the memorandum of charges produced along with the petition. The facts leading to the petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner was employed as a temporary salesman-cum-assistant Accountant in the Cochin Unit of the Indian Naval Canteen Service. His services were terminated with effect from 8-4-1982. The termination was challenged before this court in O.P. 2990/1982. By judgment dt. 30-10-1984 the termination order was quashed and consequential directions were issued by this court. The operative portion of the judgment reads:

"Accordingly I quash Ext.P6 and declare that the petitioner continues in service. I further direct respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as if he is continuing in service and consequently to give him all the benefits he is entitled to, including pay and allowances".

3. Respondent took up the matter in appeal. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment DT. 18-3-1985 rendered in W.A.58/1985 dismissed the appeal. A special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court as SLP 8284/1985. That petition was disposed of on 18-3-1986 by the following order:

"Shri N. Sudhakaran, learned counser for respondent No.1 states that the first respondent is satisfied if 1/2 of the back wages is paid within one month in full settlement of his claim as regards back wages. The first respondent shall however be reinstated. With these observations SLP is disposed leaving question open whether petitioner establishment is state".

4. In pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court petitioner was reinstated on 8-4-1986. Along with the order of reinstatement respondent issued an order requesting petitioner to sign an undertaking for a fresh appointment styled as a probationary appointment. The half backwages directed to be paid by the Supreme Court was also paid. The offer of fresh appointment was not in accordance with the decision of this court. All temporary appointments made since 1981 were regularised while petitioner was kept out of employment. In these circumstances petitioner moved this court by O.P.4466/1986 seeking directions to respondent to grant benefit of permanency and other incidental reliefs. That petition was allowed on 3-10-1986 with a direction to the respondent to issue orders implementing the directions in the earlier j Judgment. Respondent preferred an appeal against that decision as W.A.864/1986 which was dismissed. The request of respondent for clarification of the judgment in the Writ Appeal was also rejected.

5. After the order of this court in the petition for clarification respondent issued an order on 8-3-1991 asking petitioner to accept the appointment order dt.27-3-1986. A representation was made by petitioner on 8-4-1991. Thereafter respondent issued another order on 30-4-1991 informing petitioner that he will start the probation from the date he signifies acceptance of the fresh appointment order. These orders issued by respondent are alleged to be in violation of the directions of this court in the judgment dt.3-10-1986 and the writ appeal against that decision. In particular it is stated that the orders issued by the respondent to the extent that petitioner is treated as a fresh recruit from the date of signifying acceptance of Ext.P6 order dt.27-3-1986 are in violation of the directions in the judgment whereby respondent is alleged to have committed contempt of court as defined in S.2(a) and (b) of the Act.

6. The petition was presented on 23-5-1992. By order dt.10-7-1992 this court ordered notice. The personal presence of the respondent was dispensed with. Respondent filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that the present proceedings are barred as belated under S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was also contended that respondent has not violated any of the