C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Board of Revenue under section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for taking action against the non-applicant for not complying with the order of the Board dated 9-7-1979. ( 2 ) THE applicant was an agent of the Shahdol Central Co-operative Bank which was under supersession and the powers exercised by the Board of the bank Vested in the M. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. The State Co-operative bank was thus the Officer-in-charge of the affairs and functions of the Bank. However, the Bank had appointed Chief Executive Officer to manage its affairs. The Chief Executive Officer exercising powers under Rule 18 of the Co-operative bank Employees' Service Rules terminated the service of the applicant on 8-12-1973. The termination was challenged by the applicant before the Deputy registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The order was set aside on the ground that the chief Executive Officer had no power to terminate the services. Those powers vested in the Board and due to its supersession, in the M. P. State Co-operative bank. It was, therefore, directed that the applicant be reinstated with back. wages. First appeal was preferred by the Bank before the Joint Registrar which was dismissed. Second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 9-7-1979. However, the Board observed that the case is remanded to the Bank for dealing with the case according to law and in the light of the direction given in the order. In the meanwhile, the Board of the Bank was reinstated and by order dated 9-10-1980 terminated the services of the applicant with effect from 8-12-1973. The applicant, therefore, moved the Board for taking action for contempt against the Bank. The Board while making the reference observed that reasonable time was given to the Bank to comply with the directions contained in the order of the Board dated 9-7-79 but the Bank continued to ignore those directions by saying that the Board had remanded the matter for reconsideration and, as such, there is no contempt. The Board observed that by order dated 9-7-79 the applicant was to be reinstated with back wages and thereafter the Bank was free to take any action which it may take against the applicant. The Board observed that by order dated 9-7-79 the applicant was to be reinstated with back wages and thereafter the Bank was free to take any action which it may take against the applicant. According to the Board of Revenue, the action of the bank constitutes contempt of Court. It is evident that the Bank was free to take its proceedings for terminating the services of the applicant as the earlier termination order was held to be non est, but this could be done after the applicant was reinstated with back wages. Fresh order of termination could have been only a prospective one. It is also evident that in order to defeat the claim of the applicant as per order dated 9-7-1979, the Bank by its resolution dated 9-10-1980 terminated the services of the applicant retrospectively from 8-12-1973. It is not necessary for us to consider here whether such an order could have been passed terminating the services from back date and whether the order was mala-fide. ( 3 ) WE have no option but to reject the reference in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act which provides that no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Here the alleged contempt was committed by the Bank on 9-10-1980 and reference to this Court was made by the Board on 5-5-1982 which was received here on 29-6-82 and this Court issued notice to the Bank on 25-10-83 to show cause why action be not taken under the Contempt of courts Act against it. Therefore, initiation of action for contempt was much after the expiry of limitation of oae year from the date of the alleged contempt. The Supreme Court in Baradakanta v. Misra C. J, Orissa H. C. , [ air 1974 sc 2255 ] has held that the exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of the proceeding for contempt whether suo motu or on a motion or a reference. That is why the terminus a quo for the period of limitation in Section 20 is the date when a proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court. That is why the terminus a quo for the period of limitation in Section 20 is the date when a proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court. Considering this question, a Division Bench of the Allahabad high Court in Hari Nandan v. S. N Pandita, [ air 1975 All 48 ] held that Section 20 applies not only to cases where the Court takes action suo motu but also where contempt application is made after obtaining the permission of the advocate General and hence on a contempt application no notice can be issued to the alleged contemner after the expiry of one year from the date on which the coatempt is alleged to have been committed. Another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Gulab Singh v. Sri Ramji Das, [air 1975 SC 366] has held as under :"the petitioner has no right to have the respondent punished for contempt. His only duty was to bring to the notice of the Court the facts of the alleged contempt and then it was entirely a matter between the High Court and the respondent. The petitioner not having any right as such aad none of his rights having been prejudiced if the respondent is not punished for contempt, he cannot be heard to say that he should not be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the Court. "a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. J. V. Patil, [ (1976) 78 BLR 116] has held as follows :"under Section 20 read with Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971, the date on which the matter is placed before the Division bench of the High Court and on which date the rule is granted is the date when contempt proceedings can be said to be initiated in the Court. Neither the date when reference is made by the subordinate court under Section 15 (2) of the Act nor the date of the administrative order of the Administrative Judge of the High Court can be said to be the beginning of contempt proceedings. "in view of this legal position, no action for contempt can be taken against the bank in spite of the fact that there has been violation of the order of the revenue Board dated 9-7-1979 by the Bank. "in view of this legal position, no action for contempt can be taken against the bank in spite of the fact that there has been violation of the order of the revenue Board dated 9-7-1979 by the Bank. The applicant's only remedy is to raise a dispute against the Bank before the Registrar for his reinstatement with back wages and can also challenge his subsequent order of termination. ( 4 ) WITB the result, the reference is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference rejected. .