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 review of earlier decision which was passed with the finding on merit to the extent that successor officer has not been brought on record. Review/recall or appeal are the statutory remedies, vide Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641; Vijai Bahadur v. State of U.P., 1988 (14) ALR 706; Ram Jiwan Singh and others v. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and others, 1995 (26) ALR 627; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Bimla Devi and others, 1979 (5) ALR 168, 1998 (33) ALR 456; Smt. Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 (88) RD 562; Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Mgt. of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur etc., 1987 (13) ALR 680; Laxman Purushottam Pimputkar v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1964 SC 436 and Patel Chunibhai Dajibha etc. v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another, AIR 1965 SC 1457. Unless provided under the Act, no application for review/recall may be moved. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not contain any provision for review of a judgment. Hence the impugned order dated 13.9.2012 does not seem to suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

5. However, the original order dated 10.1.2012, seems to suffer from substantial illegality. The proceeding under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the Act), deals with the individual liability with regard to compliance of Court’s order. A person is accountable for non-compliance of a Court’s order, may be punished under Section 12 of the Act. Section 2 (b) defines civil contempt and Section 2 (c) defines criminal contempt. For convenience, Section 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Act, are reproduced as under:

Section 2 (b) and (c) of the Act :

(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;

(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which—

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court, or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”

6. For civil contempt, a person may be liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Act. For convenience, Section 12 of the Act is reproduced as under :

“12. Punishment for contempt of Court.—

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of Court may be punishe