JUDGMENT Rajnesh Oswal, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Statistical Assistant was transferred from the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu to the office of District Statistics & Evaluation Officer, Srinagar vide order dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner did not join at the new place of posting and the Joint Director (Central) vide order dated 20.05.2020 directed the petitioner to immediately report for further duties at her new place of posting by 27.05.2020. The petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh for quashing the orders dated 29.12.2017 and 20.05.2020. In the said application, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh vide its order dated 29.05.2020 issued a notice to the respondents therein and posted the matter for 09.06.2020. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh simultaneously stayed the impugned order after recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that she was yet to be relieved. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice dated 03.06.2020 upon the respondent therein for implementation of the said order. Thereafter, on 22.06.2020, the petitioner filed a contempt petition against respondent No. 1 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu (for short 'Tribunal') only on the ground that the petitioner was relieved on the same date when the said order was passed by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 filed the objections to the contempt petition, stating thereby that his office had relieved the petitioner prior to service of interim order dated 29.05.2020 and the legal notice of the petitioner was also duly replied. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the contempt petition vide order dated 26.10.2020. 2. The order dated 26.10.2020 (hereinafter to be referred as order impugned) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu has been impugned by the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner gave a call to Personal Assistant on landline telephone number on 29.05.2020 at 03:00 PM and asked for his mobile number and also for e-mail address of the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu for texting and mailing the copy of interim directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh on 29.05.2020 but despite assurance to revert back after some time, he neither made available his mobile number nor e-mail address of the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu. The petitioner further states that she was not permitted to mark her attendance for 30.05.2020 on the premise that she already stood relieved of her duties on 29.05.2020. The petitioner has assailed the order impugned on the ground that the respondents herein are guilty of committing contempt as the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal continued to be in operation but the respondents did not comply with the said order deliberately and as such, respondent No. 1 was required to be proceeded against for committing contempt of order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. Reply stands filed by the respondents, in which besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, it has also been stated that the Tribunal has passed the order dated 29.05.2020 after the submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that she was yet to be relieved from the said post. It is further stated that as the petitioner had failed to join at her new place of posting by 27.05.2020 as directed, so the petitioner was relieved on 29.05.2020 and thereafter, the petitioner did not turn back for joining the office of the respondents and rather, she filed the contempt petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is also stated that the interim order dated 29.05.2020 was served upon the office of the respondents on 30.05.2020 i.e. one day after the petitioner was relieved. The petitioner was relieved in the afternoon on 29.05.2020 and even she refused to accept the relieving order, as such, the respondents were left with no other option but to serve the relieving order to the petitioner through e-mail and Whatsapp at around 03:00 PM. It is also stated by the respondent that the petitioner has placed nothing on record to show that order dated 29.05.2020 was served upon the respondent No.1. The respondents have placed on record the relieving order along with screenshots of e-mail accounts and Whatsapp chat. 4. Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents are guilty of committing contempt for violating the order dated 29.05.2020 and the learned Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the controversy raised by the petitioner. He also submitted the written submissions. 5. Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. 4. Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents are guilty of committing contempt for violating the order dated 29.05.2020 and the learned Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the controversy raised by the petitioner. He also submitted the written submissions. 5. Mr. S. S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG has vehemently argued that this petition is misconceived and the learned Tribunal has rightly dealt with the issue and dismissed the petition. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. In order to prosecute and sentence a person for committing contempt of court it must be established that the order, the violation of which has been reported to the court, was within the knowledge of the alleged violator and the said person despite having knowledge of the order violated it. The alleged violator can always raise a defence that the said order was not within his knowledge. In Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union, (1970) 3 SCC 98 , Apex Court has observed as under: '8. The case against Ahmad Khan, peon, and Hoti Lal, Muharrir or Munshi of the Board, also seems to us to be distinguishable. They were not included in the array of alleged contemners in the original application but were added subsequently by means of an application dated 14th September, 1965. They were duty-bound to obey the orders of their superior officers and in the absence of any order from the Demand Inspector who was apparently the immediate superior Officer-in-charge of the realisation of stand fees and particularly when they are not shown to be aware of the stay orders issued by the High Court, they could not be expected to stay their hands in the matter of realisation of stand-fees. It is common case of the parties that no direction had been sent by any superior officer to the octroi post or to these persons to stay realisation of stand fees from Respondents 2 to 7. It is true that these respondents have alleged that they had informed these appellants as well about the existence of the High Court's order but we are inclined to think that assuming this allegation to be correct Ahmad Khan and Hoti Lal were both justified on the facts and circumstances of this case in not taking this oral information on its face value and accepting it as conclusive. In order to bring home a charge of Contempt of Court for disobeying orders of Courts those who assert that the alleged contemners had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. As observed earlier, it is of course not necessary to prove formal service of the order by official routine and knowledge of the exact order aliunde would suffice. In case of doubt, however, benefit ought to go to the person charged. We are far from satisfied that these two appellants are shown to have been aware of the exact terms of the stay order, which they were bound to obey even in the absence of a direction to that effect from their superior officers. They have also offered unqualified apology. Their appeals are allowed and the order of fine imposed on them set aside.' 8. In the written submissions, the following questions of law have been proposed by Mr. D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, which are reproduced as under:- (A) Whether while considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order? (B) Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu, while dismissing the Contempt Petition, Vide impugned Order/Judgment dated October 26, 2020 could have interpreted the same while adding fresh words, thus materially altering or adding to the original ad-interim directions dated May 29, 2020 in Original Application No. 61/317/2020 titled 'Kiran Jyoti Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.', [renumbered as Original Application No. 61/7/2020 titled 'Kiran Jyoti Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.']?. 9. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu has dismissed the application for initiating the contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1 on the ground that the order impugned was not served upon respondent No. 1. In fact the questions proposed by Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner do not arise at all for consideration of this court. In fact the questions proposed by Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner do not arise at all for consideration of this court. Only issue that is required to be examined by us is as to whether the learned Tribunal was correct in its approach while dismissing the contempt petition filed by the petitioner or not thereby holding that the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Tribunal was not served upon the respondent No. 1 10. A perusal of order dated 29.05.2020 reveals that the operation of order impugned dated 29.12.2017 that was sought to be implemented vide order dated 20.05.2020 was stayed by the Tribunal on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that the petitioner was yet to be relieved. Simultaneously, a perusal of order dated 29.05.2020 reveals that the counsel for the petitioner had undertaken to serve the copy of that order with the original application upon the respondents therein through e-mail and further, the respondents therein were to be informed telephonically also. 11. A perusal of contempt petition filed by the petitioner reveals that there was no whisper in the contempt petition that order dated 29.05.2020 was served upon respondent No. 1 in a manner as prescribed vide order dated 29.05.2020 itself. The petitioner is absolutely silent with regard to service of the order impugned upon the respondents. Rather, for the first time in this petition, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner gave a call to Personal Assistant on landline telephone number on 29.05.2020 at 03:00 PM and asked for his mobile number and also for e-mail address of the office of Chief Town Planner, Jammu for texting and mailing the copy of order dated 29.05.2020 to Personal Assistant to the Chief Town Planner, Jammu but neither he made available his mobile number nor he provided e-mail address of the office of the Chief Town Planner, Jammu. This apparently appears to be an afterthought, particularly when learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not serve the order dated 29.05.2020 upon the respondents. Even, the legal notice dated 03.06.2020 relied upon by the petitioner is absolutely silent with regard to service of the order dated 29.05.2020 upon the respondents on 29.05.2020. 12. The respondents have placed on record the reply to the legal notice. Even, the legal notice dated 03.06.2020 relied upon by the petitioner is absolutely silent with regard to service of the order dated 29.05.2020 upon the respondents on 29.05.2020. 12. The respondents have placed on record the reply to the legal notice. It is the stand of the respondents that interim order of the Tribunal was served upon the respondents on 30.05.2020, after the petitioner was relieved and stand of the respondents is substantiated by reply dated 13.06.2020 to the legal notice dated 03.06.2020. Thus, from the record it is evident that respondent No. 1 was not served with the order dated 29.05.2020 prior to the issuance of relieving order. 13. We have examined the judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu and we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view contrary to that taken by Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu. As such, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.