In the aforesaid special leave petition, this Court while issuing numberice on 30.1.2006 directed status quo insofar as the posting of the petitioner in the above special leave petition was companycerned.
A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court indicates that although stigmatic remarks have been made against respondent No.6, he was neither present number heard.
The aforesaid petition came up for hearing on 12.9.2006.
Such an order companyld number have been passed without companypliance with the rules of natural justice.
The impugned order would have serious adverse civil companysequences on the appellant.
The High Court was of the opinion that the appellant was aware of the fact that on 16.1.2006 Mr. Munna Lal Karosia had already been transferred and relived on 22.12.2005.
4665/2006 The appellant herein was respondent No.1 in Contempt Civil Petition No.335/2006 before the High Court.
SLP C No.1673/2006 Leave granted.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the appellant at length.
However, one Mr. Rakesh Kumar Arya filed a civil companytempt, being Contempt Civil Petition No.335 of 2006 before the High Court.
