Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Anoop Srivastava, Sri I.H. Farooqui, learned counsel for Union of India.

2. Since pure question of law is involved, Sri I. H. Farooqui, does not intend to file counter affidavit. Hence with the consent of parties counsel, we proceed to decide the writ petition at the admission stage.

3. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the petitioner’s application for review/recall of order dated 10.1.2012, passed in Civil Contempt Petition No. 22/2009.

4. By the order dated 10.1.2012, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed in his absence on the ground that the petitioner respondent has not moved any application to bring on record the successor since the contemner was transferred. Tribunal noted that an application for recall of an order passed in a contempt proceeding, is not maintainable. So far as the finding of Tribunal that recall/review application is not maintainable, seems to be correct. Virtually, recalling of the order dated 10.1.2012, will amount to r