JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of assailment in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 16.7.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.1/2013 rejecting the same. 2. We have heard Mr. Achintya Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. It is considered inessential, in view of the order proposed, to issue formal notice to the respondents. 4. Shortly put, the pertinent facts are that the appellant/petitioner is serving in the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force and posted at 4th Res. Bn., Jaipur. He is facing enquiry on a complaint of sexual harassment lodged against him. According to the appellant/petitioner, as inspite of his persistent insistences, he was not furnished with the necessary documents to fortify his defence to the charge levelled, he approached this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7237/2012 seeking its remedial intervention. This writ petition was disposed of on 26.9.2012 with the following operative directions:- "Having regard to the limited nature of controversy, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to supply documents aforementioned to the petitioner, so as to enable him to cross-examine witnesses. If any document is not in existence, respondents shall also intimate him reasons therefor. As regards CCTV footage, the Commandant shall verify thereabout from concerning authority of IGI Airport, New Delhi and if it is not supplied, he will intimate reasons therefor within seven days from the date a copy of this order is produced before the respondents. 5. With that direction, writ petition is disposed of. Till final communication is served upon petitioner in compliance of this order, the enquiry shall remain faulted." 6. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner had recited ten documents construed by him to be essential to work up his defence. The appellant/petitioner however, returned to this Court with the allegation of deliberate and intentional disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 26.9.2012 complaining that all the documents sought by him had not been supplied. In this context, he made special grievance with regard to the concerned Beat Book and the CCTV footage of the day(s) involved. 7. The respondents, in their reply, while emphatically refuting the accusation of not supplying the documents in terms of the order dated 26.9.2012, imputed that the appellant/petitioner had concealed/withheld relevant facts from the Court deliberately to protract the enquiry proceedings. 7. The respondents, in their reply, while emphatically refuting the accusation of not supplying the documents in terms of the order dated 26.9.2012, imputed that the appellant/petitioner had concealed/withheld relevant facts from the Court deliberately to protract the enquiry proceedings. While insisting that the order dated 26.9.2012 has been complied with in its letter and spirit, they made reference to the correspondences made, whereby copies of the documents referred to therein had been furnished to the appellant/petitioner and reasons for the inability to do so recorded, in case of others. That the documents alongwith the correspondences containing inter alia reasons for the inability to furnish copies of the concerned documents had been duly received by the appellant/petitioner, has been underlined. 8. A rejoinder was filed by the appellant/petitioner, in essence, controverting the respondents' plea of compliance of the order dated 26.9.2012. 9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on an elaborate consideration of their pleaded stands, concluded as hereunder:- "Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the documents on record, it clearly transpires that the directions given by the learned Single Judge to the respondents were to the effect that the respondents shall supply the documents to the petitioner as prayed in the petition and that if any document was not in existence, the respondents shall intimate the petitioner the reasons therefor. As to the CCTV footage, it was directed that the Commandant shall verify from the concerning authority on IGI Airport, New Delhi, and if it was not supplied, he would intimate the reasons therefor to the petitioner. It appears that in view of the said directions given in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents had sent the intimation dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure-R/1) providing the documents which were available with them and also giving the details about the documents which were not available with them. Accordingly some of the documents pertaining to Boarding Gate Chard at Serial No.2 was furnished, however, the Beat Books and the Duty Chart, as demanded by the petitioner, were not furnished, on the ground that the system of issuing Beat books for individual post was not implemented at the time of incident. Accordingly some of the documents pertaining to Boarding Gate Chard at Serial No.2 was furnished, however, the Beat Books and the Duty Chart, as demanded by the petitioner, were not furnished, on the ground that the system of issuing Beat books for individual post was not implemented at the time of incident. Duty Chart of the complainant for the period from 10.07.2010 to 05.08.2010 was supplied and for the rest of the period, it was not supplied on the ground that the same was not available with the office. As regards CCTV footage it was stated that the CCTV footage which was available with the office has already been provided to the petitioner and that entire CCTV footage, as desired, being not available was not supplied. The respondents had also annexed the communication dated 08.12.2012 of Commandant IGI Airport, New Delhi addressed to the petitioner stating inter alia that the CCTV footage for 20.10.2010 to 21.10.2010 was not available with the management, IGI Airport, New Delhi, for which the DIAL Management letter dated 05.10.2012 was also enclosed. In view of the said communication addressed by the respondents to the petitioner, it clearly transpires that the respondents had provided the documents and the CCTV footage to the petitioner which were available with them, however they have not provided the other documents which, according to them, were not in existence and therefore, not provided. Under the circumstance, this Court is satisfied with the due compliance of the order passed by the Court in the writ petition by the respondents. and consequently, dismissed the contempt petition, being of the view that no case for contempt of court had been made out against the respondents. 10. Mr. Kaushik has emphatically urged that it being apparent on the face of the records that the documents, more particularly, the Beat Book as well as CCTV footage of the relevant period, though available, had not been furnished to the appellant/petitioner, in conscious violation of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 26.9.2012, the learned Single Judge had erred in law and on facts in relieving them (respondents) of the charge of contempt of court. The learned counsel took pains to dilate on the pleaded averments to buttress his arguments. 11. We have duly considered the materials on record and have also taken note of the arguments advanced. 12. The learned counsel took pains to dilate on the pleaded averments to buttress his arguments. 11. We have duly considered the materials on record and have also taken note of the arguments advanced. 12. As it is, by the impugned judgment and order, the contempt petition filed by the appellant/petitioner had been dismissed on the ground that no case for contempt had been made out against the respondents. Without however, adverting to the aspect of maintainability of the present appeal preferred under Rule 134 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, suffice it to state that having regard to the nature of the proceedings in hand, a hair-splitting analysis of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, at the first place, is unwarranted. Two conflicting versions surfaced from the rival pleadings. Noticeably, in the order dated 26.9.2012, this Court while directing the respondents to supply the documents, enumerated by the appellant/petitioner, had observed that if any such document is not in existence, reasons to that effect ought to be intimated to him (appellant/petitioner). As regards CCTV footage, the jurisdictional Commandant was directed to verify about the same from the concerned authority of the IGI Airport, New Delhi, and that, if the same could not be supplied, the appellant/petitioner be intimated the reasons therefor. The communications referred to in the reply filed by the respondents do, amongst others, demonstrate that the reasons for not furnishing the documents mentioned therein had been duly recorded. That these communications were addressed to the appellant/petitioner, is writ large therefrom. 13. The quoted extract from the impugned judgment and order evinces that all relevant aspects had been duly examined by the learned Single Judge in returning the finding that no case for contempt had been made out against the respondents 14. On an analysis of the materials on record, we see no cogent and convincing reason to differ from the reasons and conclusions recorded in the impugned decision. 15. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******