The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Director, Punjab Bureau of Investigation, to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be not initiated against him for prima facie “wilful disobedience and defiance” of its August 27 order staying the repatriation of a police official. The court 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 Namit Kumar’s bench was told that the petitioner was given “different postings at four places” within seven months due to “malafide intentions”. “Let notice be issued to the respondent — Director, Punjab Bureau of Investigation — to show cause as to why proceedings under the ‘Contempt of Courts Act, 1971’ be not initiated against him for defiance of the order dated August 27. The respondent shall, 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,” Justice Kumar asserted.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 bench was told that 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.As the matter came up before the high court again, 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 DDR. 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,“It is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached this court assailing the order of repatriation dated August 19 passed by the respondent and that during the pendency of the proceedings, operation of the order was stayed by this court vide order dated August 27,” Justice Kumar asserted.The bench added the chronology raised a serious issue requiring examination. “The sequence of events, viewed in the backdrop of the order dated 27.08.2026 passed by this court, prima facie gives rise to a serious issue as to whether the subsequent order of transfer was passed in due compliance with, and regard to, the directions issued by this court,” Justice Kumar asserted.“The circumstances also prima facie indicate that the petitioner may have been targeted and subjected to the subsequent action on account of his having invoked the jurisdiction of this court against the order of repatriation. The nature and sequence of the events, coupled with the apparent disregard of the subsisting order of this court, are sufficient, at this stage, to call for an explanation from the respondent,” Justice Kumar added. The matter will now come up on October 27.