K.C. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 31-7-1996 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal in Contempt Petition No 172 of 1993.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised that the appeal is not maintainable as no order of punishment had been passed in the present case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the appeal is maintainable as a finding has been given that a prima facie contempt is made out. In order to resolve the controversy it is necessary to reproduce the impugned order dated 31-7-1996 : "The opposite party has applied for discharge of notice. It is objected. After hearing I have carefully perused the relevant material en record. There is a definite finding on 25-7-1995 that a prima fads contempt is made out. After this opposite party was given three option on 24-8-1995. He did not follow any of them. Hence, it transpires that he is virtually avoiding the compliance including the attempt to get a post created. Therefore the discharge is refused." Let the case be listed on 22-8-1996 for framing of charge against him. Opposite party to remain present on that date. Sd/- J. B. Singh 31-7-1996;