JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been instituted alleging that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the final order dated 11.12.2015, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7057 (S/S) of 2015. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 11.12.2015 with several directions. One of the directions was that the petitioner may submit an application demanding the requisite documents indicating their relevancy in the disciplinary proceedings and in such an eventuality, the disciplinary authority shall consider the said representation and take a decision in this regard to furnish requisite documents to the petitioner or otherwise. Thus, the direction was given by the Court to the respondent to exercise his discretion and to take a decision on the prayer made by the petitioner demanding the documents. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not take decision on the representation preferred by the petitioner demanding the requisite documents. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, rather, is that while rejecting the said prayer, the authority concerned has not given any plausible reason and thus has not followed and obeyed the spirit of the order of this Court dated 11.12.2015. 5. Any act on the part of an authority or a person to constitute contempt has to be deliberate and intentional. It is quite possible that the authority concerned might have rejected the prayer made by the petitioner on untenable grounds and such an order may suffer from some impeachable illegality, however, it will not constitute contempt. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of the Court that the Court in its order dated 11.12.2015 has further directed that if the petitioner wants to adduce oral testimony of any witness of cross-examine any witness to be produced by the opposite parties, he shall inform the Enquiry Officer accordingly who shall take a decision thereon by an order in writing. Again on the prayer made by the petitioner in this regard, decision has been taken by the Enquiry Officer, which may or may not be lawful or correct or legally sustainable. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed on the said application. Again on the prayer made by the petitioner in this regard, decision has been taken by the Enquiry Officer, which may or may not be lawful or correct or legally sustainable. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed on the said application. During the course of the disciplinary proceedings, it is always open to take recourse to other remedies which may be available to him under law for impeaching the said orders. It is also open to the petitioner to take the grounds which are being urged in this contempt petition while challenging the order of punishment in appropriate forum at the time of instituting appropriate proceedings for the said purpose. 7. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the facts mentioned in this petition do not make out a case for initiating the contempt proceedings. However, the decision taken by the respondents on the application preferred by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2015, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7057 (S/S) of 2015, if are found to be unlawful or erroneous, the same are certainly capable of causing some impact on the ultimate order of punishment which can be seen by the appropriate forum if the petitioner challenges the order of punishment by instituting appropriate proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition is disposed of.