An appeal against a contempt order is maintainable only if it involves punishment for contempt; the court found justifiable reasons for the delay in compliance with the order.

JUDGMENT :

(Sureshwar Thakur, J.)

The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 13.9.2024, as passed by the learned Contempt Bench of this Court in COCP No. 585 of 2024.

Brief facts of the case.

2. Vide order dated 02.12.2023, the writ petition bearing No.CWP-27066-2023, was disposed of by this Court, wherebys, the examination which was required to be cleared by the Kanungo(s) for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, thus became directed to be held within a period of two months, from the date of passing of order (supra).

3. The operative portion of the said order becomes reproduced hereinafter.

“4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and on instructions from Mr. Naveen, Inspector, Director Land Record, Panchkula, Haryana, submits that keeping in view the information received from the department concerned, the departmental examination which is required to be cleared by the kanungo for the promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar will be held within a period of two months from today.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the statement of learned State counsel, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.

6. Ordered accordingly.”

4. A copy of the order dated 02.12.2023 was received in the office of Director, Land Records, on 01.01.2024 from the Registry of this Court. The department proposed to conduct departmental exam on 11.12.2023 to 15.12.2023. However, the same could not be conducted as the government decided to conduct the departmental exam, through the aegis of the Central Committee of Examinations, thus under the control of the Chief Secretary, Haryana, instead of the Director, Land Records. From the same, it is clear that the process for compliance being made to the order dated 02.12.2023, thus was initiated much prior to the passings of the order dated 02.12.2023. However, the exam had to be rescheduled rather for compelling circumstance(s), as became comprised in the then ongoing elections to the Union Parliament, whereins, the staff concerned became deployed. Subsequently, the scheduled exam, as became ordered to be conducted by this Court, was infact conducted and therebys compliance became rendered to the order dated 02.12.2023.

5. Respondent Resham Singh preferred COCP No.585 of 2024 before this Court, alleging thereins willful non-compliance by the appellants, qua the order dated 02.12.2023. It was also pleaded thereins, that the action of the appellants in not conducting the departmental examination, despite passing of (supra) specific order, thus displays wilful disobedience becoming made vis-a-vis the order passed by this Court.

6. The appellants filed reply to the said Contempt Petition wherebys they justified the causings of delay in the holdings of the departmental examination. The learned Contempt Court concerned, vide order dated 13.09.2024, adjourned the case for 24.09.2024, thus for the purpose(s) of consideration being made upon framing of charges against the appellants. The relevant paragraph of the verdict (supra) becomes extracted hereinafter.

“4. In view of above, any effort made by the respondents in explaining the delay to be unintentional cannot come to their rescue as the direction was issued by this Court for holding the departmental examination within two months being fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner was about to retire on 31.03.2024 and in such circumstances, it is plain and clear case of willful non-compliance of the specific and categoric undertaking furnished before this Court and, thus, prima facie case for proceeding against the respondents in terms of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is made out. Therefore, for the purpose of consideration upon framing of charges against them, list on 24.09.2024.

5. The respondents to remain present in Court either in-person or through video-con