JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. 1. The contempt application has been filed alleging disobedience of the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C)....CC No.7657 of 2016, dated 2nd May, 2016, in appeal filed by the applicant before the Supreme Court. 2. From the materials, which appears on record, it transpires that a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal PIL No.20736 of 2011 has been pleased to make observations against the applicant on 1.12.2015, relevant portion whereof is reproduced: - "21. In an office report, there is a report received in Urdu regarding service of notice upon complainant to respect of Km. Samina Khatoon to her father Mr. Abdul Muheed, the complainant and receipt was marked in Urdu. Hence, Office was not able to make it clear whether the notice was served upon the complainant or not. The order-sheet clearly shows that the Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar, Writ Sections, who are also supervising the work of Writ of Criminal nature, did not bother to look into the matter being supervisory officers regarding compliance of the order passed by this Court. Unless they go through the orders passed by this Court and the report received from the authority concerned, how these officers can ensure compliance and how there would be effective compliance of the order of this Court. All the responsibilities are upon the Assistant Review Officer, Review Officer and Section Officer concerned. On all the dates Mr. Devi Shankar, Section Officer is taking a lot of pain and making sincere efforts for compliance of the order. 22. When the case was taken up, since the Deputy Registrar, In-charge Judicial Department Mr. M.A. Siddiqui was not present, hence when he was called, he appeared. He was asked whether there is any translator in the High Court or not and why he had not taken pains for compliance of the order then he got irritated. Both reply and his attitude was not humble rather derogatory and he replied that unless he was informed by the officer concerned how would he be aware as to what kind of compliance of the order was required. During the Court's proceedings in open court, instead of feeling sorry started arguments, his tone of reply was derogatory and behaviour of Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Deputy Registrar, writ and In-charge Judicial Section was contemptuous and against the dignity of the Court. During the Court's proceedings in open court, instead of feeling sorry started arguments, his tone of reply was derogatory and behaviour of Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Deputy Registrar, writ and In-charge Judicial Section was contemptuous and against the dignity of the Court. What kind of supervisory work, the Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar will do if they do not even take pain to go through the orders passed by the court and the entire burden is shifted on Assistant Review Officer, Review Officer and Section Officer concerned is a question which remains unanswered. He misconducted himself. His language was derogatory and he had a very casual approach in the matter. He was defunct in discharging his duties. We feel he does not deserve to hold such important post. 23. Instead of initiating any proceeding or taking action against him, we feel it proper to bring the matter to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Hence, let this matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his Lordship's kind consideration and appropriate action in the interest of institution and for smooth functioning of the Court. 24. List on 07.1.2016." 3. The aforesaid order has been carried in appeal by the applicant, in which following orders have been passed on 2.5.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: - "Permission to file SLP is granted. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Until further orders, the impugned order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court shall remain stayed." 4. Applicant alleges disobedience of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court on following two counts: - (i). It is contended that despite interim directions issued by the Apex Court, disciplinary enquiry initiated against the applicant is being pursued, and dates are being fixed in the matter, which amounts to a deliberate act of disobedience on part of opposite parties. (ii). It is also contended that since applicant had been transferred pursuant to the observations made by this Court on 1.12.2015, as such the obvious consequence of the orders of the Supreme Court would be that applicant's transfer order be set aside, and his posting be restored at Allahabad, but the failure to do so amounts to an act of wilful disobedience on part of opposite parties. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has appeared before the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has appeared before the Court. It has been stated that pursuant to an administrative decision taken by the Court, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant has been kept in abeyance till the disposal of the matter pending before the Apex Court. So far as applicant's transfer is concerned, it is stated that applicant had been transferred pursuant to an administrative order passed by the Court on 8th January, 2016, and pursuant thereto applicant is continuing at Lucknow since then. It is stated that the order of transfer is an administrative order passed on 8.1.2016, which has not been stayed/set aside by the Apex Court, and as such, at this stage, there is no occasion for the order of transfer to be set aside, and restore the applicant's posting at Allahabad. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the records. 7. From the stand, which has been taken by the opposite parties, it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant under the direction of this Court dated 1.12.2015 has already been kept in abeyance, in due deference to the orders of the Apex Court. So far as the applicant's transfer to Lucknow is concerned, the same had already been given effect to, pursuant to administrative order dated 8th January, 2016, which has not been stayed by the Apex Court. It is always open for the applicant to seek appropriate protection in respect of the order of transfer, but in view of the proceedings, which exist on record, and the orders passed, this Court is of the opinion that no act of wilful or deliberate disobedience is made out, if the applicant's posting is not made at Allahabad. 8. In view of the observations made above, no disobedience is made out against the opposite parties, and the contempt application, accordingly, is consigned to record.