Barely 75 minutes after the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered bailable warrants against Punjab Bureau of Investigation Director L K Yadav for failing to appear in a contempt matter even after the order was conveyed to him, the IPS officer sought time to submit his response.Justice Namit Kumar’s Bench, on a previous date of hearing, had issued notice to show-cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be not initiated against him for prima facie ‘willful disobedience and defiance’ of its August 27 order staying the repatriation of a police official. The Court had also stayed the operation of the subsequent September 8 transfer order and directed the respondents not to further transfer the petitioner anywhere else without its leave.Among other things, Justice Kumar’s Bench was told that the petitioner was given “different postings at four places” within seven months due to malafide intentions. Taking up the matter, the Court had than asked the respondent to “in particular explain the circumstances and basis in which the subsequent order of transfer was passed by him against the petitioner, notwithstanding the subsisting order dated August 27 passed by this Court.”As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the State counsel produced a communication dated September 29 conveying the September 10 order to the Director. “Despite service, the respondent is neither present in the Court nor any response has been furnished by him.” Justice Kumar noted.Consequently, Justice Kumar at 2.15 pm ordered: “In these circumstances, let bailable warrants of respondent be issued for November 25.11.2026.” At 3.30 pm, the Director, however, appeared before the Bench and sought time to submit his response to the September 10 order.Recording the subsequent developments, Justice Kumar observed: “At this stage, after passing of the above order at 2:15 pm, respondent LK Yadav, IPS, Director, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, has put in appearance at 3:30 pm, and seeks time to submit his response in terms of the order dated September 10.”The order by Justice Kumar’s Bench came on a petition filed by Varinder Singh through counsel Puneet Gupta challenging the September 8 order transferring him from the Punjab Bureau of Investigation to Crime Zone, Amritsar.The petitioner had initially challenged the August 19 order whereby he was repatriated to his parent department. On August 27, the High Court issued notice of motion before staying the repatriation order’s order till the next date of hearing.Gupta contended that the petitioner submitted his joining report on August 28 in compliance to the order. But he was not allowed to join his duties. The petitioner consequently filed an application in the earlier petition seeking appropriate directions and orders for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. That application came up on September 8, when the State counsel sought time to obtain instructions and the matter was adjourned to September 10.Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for one day’s casual leave for September 8 on personal grounds. According to his submission recorded by the Court, he was subsequently called to the office twice that afternoon. He was told to attend office immediately, failing which adverse action would be taken against him.”The petitioner submitted that he immediately attended the office, where an entry regarding his joining was made in the Daily Diary Register. According to him, the fresh transfer order followed within five minutes. “After five minutes of his joining, another transfer order dated September 8 has been issued, whereby the petitioner has now been transferred to Crime Zone, Amritsar (under Punjab Bureau of Investigation),” the Bench was told.The petitioner further submitted that his salary for August had not been paid, although it was released to all other employees. Gupta submitted that the Director thereby overreached the August 27 order staying his repatriation.