AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
The only basis for this contempt petition is a communication dated 7 April 2025, addressed by the respondents to the petitioner in which the petitioner was referred to as “DIG (Retd)”.
The case of the petitioner is that, as there was a stay granted by this Court, by order dated 30 January 2025, of the demotion of the petitioner from the post of IG to the post of DIG, the respondents could not have referred to him as “DIG (Retd)” in the communication.
Apart from this sole communication, there is not a single other document to which this contempt petition makes reference, as would indicate that the respondents are treating the petitioner as DIG (Retd).
Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions from Mr. D.S. Rawat, Assistant Commandant, submits that the reference to the petitioner as DIG (Retd) in the letter dated 7 April 2025 was inadvertent and that they do not intend to treat the petitioner as DIG so long as the stay order dated 30 January 2025 passed by this Court remains in force.
In view of the said statement, it is clear that no contumacious or willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court can be laid at the door of the respondents.
Recording the aforesaid statement of the respondents, we dispose of this contempt petition.