Judgment :- SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J. (1) WE have heard the counsel for the parties at length. (2) THIS case demonstrates the rather belligerent attitude, which is sometimes adopted, by the executive authorities in implementing the plain and simple directions issued by the Court. We may briefly notice the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. (3) THE respondent was charge-sheeted on the ground of defalcation of funds to the extent of Rs. 36,000/- and odd. He was proceeded against departmentally. The Inquiring Officer found him guilty. A show-cause notice was issued to him proposing a punishment of dismissal. After receiving the reply to the show-cause notice, he was dismissed from service. He approached this Court by filing a writ petition being C. O. No. 10234 (W) of 1996. This writ petition was decided on 22nd of September, 2000. Elaborate discussion was made in the judgment before coming to a conclusion that the Inquiring Officer was biased and the proceedings was conducted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent. The entire proceedings except the charge- sheet were quashed. The respondents in the writ petition were granted an opportunity to proceed with the matter de novo on the same charge-sheet. (4) AN appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the appellate Court with a little modification of the order affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appellant-Bank proceeded against the respondent/writ petitioner de novo by appointing an Inquiring officer. The second Inquiry ultimately revealed that there had been a loss to the bank only to the extent of Rs. 9,000/- and odd and not Rs. 36,000/- and odd. At the same time, the inquiring officer held that the charges have been proved. The learned Single Judge has observed that the delinquent was served with a copy of the inquiry report. The respondent/writ petitioner filed a detailed explanation against the inquiry report of the Inquiring Officer. However, the second show-cause notice was issued by the appellant-Bank again proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent, therefore, filed the second writ petition being Writ Petition no. 555 of 2003 (G. A. No. 382 of 2006, G. A. No. 596 of 20,06, C. P. A. N. No. 1455 of 2002). However, the second show-cause notice was issued by the appellant-Bank again proposing punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent, therefore, filed the second writ petition being Writ Petition no. 555 of 2003 (G. A. No. 382 of 2006, G. A. No. 596 of 20,06, C. P. A. N. No. 1455 of 2002). When the writ petition came up for initial hearing, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellant-Bank to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding and pass a final order. A direction was also issued to the appellant-Bank not to communicate the same without the leave of the Court. During the pendency of the petition, the Bank passed the final order which was produced before the learned Single Judge in a sealed cover. A perusal of the order showed that the respondent had again been dismissed from service. (5) ON perusal of the order, the learned Single Judge observed the following infirmities:- "on perusal of the copy of the final order as produced by Mr. Sarbadhikari it appears that the disciplinary authority without dealing with the issues raised by the delinquent on the enquiry report, rejected those contentions by observing those as irrelevant. According to the disciplinary authority, explanation offered by the delinquent on the enquiry report was not satisfactory. The disciplinary authority after giving the background of the case and the proceedings before this Court imposed punishment. The copy of the final order as produced by Mr. Sarbadhikari be kept on record. " (6) THE learned Single Judge on the basis of the observation made in the earlier judgment as well as the second inquiry report came to the conclusion that the original charge of defalcation of Rs. 36,000. 00 and odd had been whittled down to Rs. 9,000/- and odd. Thus, it has been observed that there had been a dilution of the charge to a substantial extent. It was specifically observed that there might be possibility of error in the accounting system of the Bank. It was further observed that the documents which had been produced before the first Inquiring Officer was also produced before the second Inquiring Officer. Yet the second Inquiring Officer found that the amount of defalcation should only be Rs. 9,000/- and odd and not rs. 36,000/- and odd. It was further observed that the documents which had been produced before the first Inquiring Officer was also produced before the second Inquiring Officer. Yet the second Inquiring Officer found that the amount of defalcation should only be Rs. 9,000/- and odd and not rs. 36,000/- and odd. The learned Single Judge, therefore, observed that it might be possible that if there was a third inquiry, the amount might have been lesser. This, according to the learned Judge, would lead one to believe that there is a likelihood of faulty accounting system. A request was also made by the counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner to produce the audit report wherein the discrepancy had surfaced. It was submitted that if the report is produced it would show that the respondent-petitioner was given a clean chit by the audit officials. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that an opportunity should be given to the delinquent to prefer an appeal from the final order. It was further observed that:-"the appellant authority may go into the question afresh in the light of the observations made by me herein". (7) THE respondent-petitioner also undertook to deposit the sum of rs. 9,000/- and odd during the course of the day with the Bank. The respondent-writ petitioner was permitted to file the appeal only if the aforesaid amount was deposited. The appellate authority was also directed to grant a personal hearing to the respondent-petitioner. It was specifically observed that:- "the appellate authority would also take into note of the observations made by me herein that there might be a possibility of faulty accounting system. The appellate authority would also consider the audit report so referred to by Mr. Mukherjee before me and taking a sum total of the events, a lighter punishment may be imposed other than the punishment from removal or dismissal from service. The incident is of 1993 now we are in 2006. Hence, I do not propose to quash the entire proceedings once again and send it for another enquiry as I am told the petitioner has only four years left in his service career. Hence I direct the appellate authority to consider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made by me herein. " (8) THE appellate authority considered the appeal and rejected the same. Hence I direct the appellate authority to consider the issue afresh in the light of the observations made by me herein. " (8) THE appellate authority considered the appeal and rejected the same. While rejecting the statutory application on 10th of November, 2006, the appellate authority has observed that it does not find any new, cogent or reasonable ground in the appeal as the charges levelled against the appellant (respondent herein) had been duly proved. The appellate authority also stated that he had gone through the audit report but the appellant has made "much ado about nothing". The appellate authority specifically observed that "as a matter of fact the said audit report is totally irrelevant for arriving at a decision in respect of the substantiation of charge against the appellant save and except the fact that shortage in the concerned Bhukailash Extension Counter had been established". It is further sought to be justified by observation in Paragraph-5 of the order as under:- "the audit report cannot pinpoint individual liability and act of misconduct, if any. By other independent evidence, as proved in the enquiry proceeding and by admission of the appellant through deposit of shortage, the charge against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. " (9) AGAIN dealing with the explanation given by the respondent, it has been held that the appellant has dealt with extraneous issues like the other charges against other employees, officers which have no relation to the charge against the appellant. The appellate authority further observed that he fully concurs with the findings of the disciplinary authority inasmuch as the appellant-delinquent employee has not been able to establish as to how those cases have any relevance with the charge against the appellant. These findings are further compounded by the observations made in Paragraph-7 wherein it is stated as follows:- "from the proceedings of the personal hearing, I have found that the appellant has once again harped upon enquiry proceedings and the report of the enquiry officer, though the same have even got the seal of approval of the Honble Court too. In respect of accounting system, I do not find any fault and infirmity. Nor the audit report has pointed out any such short-coming. There is not a trace of evidence or reasoning as to how and why the accounting system is faulty and in what respect. In respect of accounting system, I do not find any fault and infirmity. Nor the audit report has pointed out any such short-coming. There is not a trace of evidence or reasoning as to how and why the accounting system is faulty and in what respect. Mere reduction of the amount of shortage cannot be a reason to hold the accounting procedure or system as faulty. " (10) IN Paragraph-8 of the order, the appellate authority states reference to the order dated 22nd September, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 10234 (W) of 1996 passed by the High Court has no relevance save and except the fact that the Court had been convinced about the existence of charges against the appellant. In spite of the observations made by the court in two separate. Writ petitions, the appellate authority has held that:- "there has been complete compliance of principle of natural justice and the appellant does not and cannot raise any objection to such enquiry in his appeal. The report of the enquiry officer, too, does not show any infirmity, which has been already confirmed by the Honble Court in its order dated 24. 3. 06 in W. P. No. 555 of 2003. Rather the Honble Court has held that there is no need of any further enquiry. The appellant has accepted the verdict without any demur, deposited the shortage and has preferred the appeal. The findings of the disciplinary authority too, in my considered view is fully justified on the proven fact, with which I concur. " (11) THESE observations, in our opinion, are sufficient to show that the appellate authority had scant regard for the dignity and the finality of the observations made by the two learned Single Judges of this Court. The judgment in the earlier case was affirmed by the appellate Court as the appeal had been dismissed. In the present case no appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank. The observations have been made by the appellate authority in the teeth of the very specific observations made by this Court. The respondent-writ petitioner instead of filing a writ petition against the order of the appellate authority filed C. C. No. 174 of 2006. In the present case no appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank. The observations have been made by the appellate authority in the teeth of the very specific observations made by this Court. The respondent-writ petitioner instead of filing a writ petition against the order of the appellate authority filed C. C. No. 174 of 2006. (12) IN spite of blatant contempt committed by the appellate authority, the learned Trial Judge in the Contempt Court very graciously observed that the order passed by the appellate authority was not in the light of the observations made in the order dated March 24, 2006. Therefore, in spite of contemptuous comments made by the appellate authority, the learned single Judge directed it to take fresh decision in the light of the observations made by His Lordship in the Order dated 24th March, 2006. However, while doing so, His Lordship also quashed the order passed by the appellate authority. Rule Ms/was, in fact, discharged. (13) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid order, the Bank filed appeal being A. P. O. T. No. 233 of 2007, G. A. No. 1283 of 2007, C. C. No. 174 of 2006 (Central Bank of India v. Nripendra Nath Sarkar), which was dismissed by this Court on 6th of June 2007 with the following observation:- "heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, since the learned Single Judge has not imposed any punishment on the appellant, the present appeal would not be maintainable under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In case the appellant is aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned Single judge with regard to the merits of the decision taken by the authorities, the appellant would always be at liberty to seek remedy by way of inter-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Accordingly, both the appeal and the application are disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usgal undertakings. " (14) ON the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the present appeal has been filed. (15) WE see absolutely no merit in the appeal. In our opinion, the appellate authority of the appellant-Bank has been shown a great deal of leniency by the learned Single Judge. " (14) ON the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, the present appeal has been filed. (15) WE see absolutely no merit in the appeal. In our opinion, the appellate authority of the appellant-Bank has been shown a great deal of leniency by the learned Single Judge. Even after taking note of the unwarranted observations of the appellate authority in rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent-writ petitioner and in a manner totally contrary to the observations made by the learned Single Judge, no punishment was imposed on the appellate authority. Not only no punishment, but adverse comments were even made about the observations made by the appellate authority. Rather, another opportunity has been given to rectify the error. Mr. Bose submits that while dealing with an application for contempt the court ought to be concerned only with the question whether the earlier decision has received its finality and has been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for the Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had been assailed and to take a view different from that what was taken in the earlier decision. In support of this the learned counsel relied on a judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. Subedar Devassy pv, 2006 (1) SCC 613 . We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (16) IN the interest of justice we grant another four weeks time to the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 24th march, 2006 and the observations made by this Court in this appeal.