Chandigarh, Oct. 16 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday ordered framing of charges under the Contempt of Court Act against director, rural development and panchayat, Punjab, Uma Shankar Gupta, for allegedly misleading the court. "This court is left with no other option but to frame charges against the respondent (Gupta), as prima facie he has not only committed contempt but also exhibited defiance," the bench of justice Pankaj Jain observed while summoning the officer for hearing on October 16. If convicted, he may face jail up to six months, and a fine up to Rs 2,000 or both. The petition was from a former panchayat secretary, Charanjit Singh, filed in May this year, in which he had alleged contempt of court by the director by not complying with an undertaking given in his petition, which was disposed of in December 2024. His petition raised a dispute about calculation of pension and release of the same. It was disposed of in December 2024 while recording an undertaking from the state's counsel that if the petitioner represents the government, his application would be decided in eight weeks and if rejected, due reasons would be mentioned. However, in May he moved a contempt petition alleging that the government has not complied with the December 2024 order. Pursuant to this an affidavit was filed by Gupta and when the matter was taken up on August 28, the court recorded that as per affidavit for non-compliance, an attempt has been made to take a refuge under the pendency of a matter before a division bench. But petitioner's counsel, Deepak Nayar, had pointed out that there is no intra-court appeal pending in the case in hand. Upon this, the state's counsel sought time and when the matter was taken up again on September 10, the state admitted that there was no appeal pending in the case in hand upon which Gupta was summoned by the court for September 29. As per proceedings, the case could not be taken up on the said date but when it was heard on October 15, Gupta, who himself was present through video-conferencing, reiterated that non-compliance was due to an appeal pending before the division bench "without showing how the appeal being cited by the officer is applicable" in the petitioner's case. The court termed his actions as "defiance" and summoned him for October 16....