JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Rudra Pal Gupta has preferred this petition for taking action against the opposite party-District Agricultural Officer Allahabad under the Contempt of Courts Act. The allegations are that the order dated 19.2.1991 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7224 of 1991 and another order dated 24.4.91 passed by another learned Single Judge have been intentionally flouted and therefore, contempt of this Court's orders have been committed. When this matter came up before the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil contempt matters the to the view that may be that allegations contained in paragraph No. 41 of the affidavit filed in support of this application would amount to Criminal contempt also and, therefore, he agreed with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that charge should be framed against the opposite party of having committed Criminal contempt also. 2. Dr. R. Dwivedi has argued this matter at great length and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit have' been exchanged. 3. Three facts may be noted here. Firstly, the petitioner was initially suspended on 29.8.1989 on some charges of embezzlement, etc. He challenged t1 departmental proceedings initiated against him by writ petition No. 981 of 1990 in which, apart from other observations it was said that this Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution, secondly, the applicant filed another writ petition No. Nil of 1991 and alleged that in the meantime Enquiring Officer has submitted a report in his favour and, therefore, action should be taken by the opposite-party in accordance with the said report of the Enquiring Officer. A learned Single Judge directed that suitable orders by the opposite-party should be passed on the basis of report of the Enquiring Officer dated 5.7.1990 within one month. This order was passed on 19.2.1991. 4. Thirdly, the petitioner filed a third Writ Petition No.Nil; of 1991 in which a learned Single Judge passed order on 24.3.1991. The relevant portion reads thus : "..........the higher authorities directed the District Agriculture Officer respondents No. 2 that if no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner within three weeks then the suspension order be revoked. 5. The learned Single Judge has further directed that however, enquiry may be concluded expeditiously. 6. Dr. The relevant portion reads thus : "..........the higher authorities directed the District Agriculture Officer respondents No. 2 that if no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner within three weeks then the suspension order be revoked. 5. The learned Single Judge has further directed that however, enquiry may be concluded expeditiously. 6. Dr. Dwivedi vehemently argued that this Court should take strict view of the matter and since charge-sheet was infact allegedly sent to the petitioner on 23.10.1990. it should be taken to be flouting the orders of the learned Single Judge noted above. It was also argued that non-compliance of the Division Bench order was also there because departmental proceedings have not been completed within four months as suggested in the first order of the Division Bench. 7. Sri B. D. Mandhyan has placed materials indicating that the applicant is not cooperating with the departmental proceedings. This allegation, however, was strongly refuted by Dr. Dwivedi. 8. Coming to the question whether the contempt of this Court's aforesaid orders have been committed or not, it may be stated here that the orders of learned Single Judge dated 24.4.1991 could be interpreted to indicate that charge-sheet could be served within three weeks of 24.4.1991. It is admitted case that the charge-sheet was issued on 23.10.90. This may be within three weeks of the order dated 24.11.1990 as referred to in the preceding paragraph by the learned Single Judge. Consequently it cannot be said that this order was intentionally flouted. 9. Coming to the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.2.91 it may be stated here that it is emphatically denied that any Enquiring Officer of the name and description suggested by the Petitioner was at all appointed or that he has submitted any enquiry report dated 5.7.1990. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that here is any intentional disobedience of the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.2.1991. Coming to the question as to whether there was Criminal contempt, the most that can be said is that language used by the opposite party was erring on the side of un-parliamentariness, he should have been more polite and respectful. However, this is choice of the language and accuracy of expression may not he taken to be a ground for initiating a contempt proceedings and that too Criminal contempt. However, this is choice of the language and accuracy of expression may not he taken to be a ground for initiating a contempt proceedings and that too Criminal contempt. We have no reason to think that the opposite party being responsible Government Officer intended to dishonour the order of this Court or to humiliate those orders or bring down the dignity and reputation of this Court in any manner whatsoever. 10. Dr. Dwivedi then said that inspite of earlier directions non-completion of the departmental proceedings is causing great hardship to the applicant inasmuch as his subsistence allowance has been reduced from th of the salary to one-half of it. 11. It is hereby directed that the opposite party shall conclude the departmental proceedings subject to the petitioner's co-operating with it within a period of three months from filing of the copy of this order by the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observations this application is dismissed. 13. No observations made above in this contempt petition shall be used or interpreted in any manner whatsoever luring the departmental proceedings which have been made only for disposing of this Contempt petition.