Singh had approached the tribunal seeking correction in the pension papers of his wife, regarding the genuineness of her life certificate and for sanction of family pension. The petition was rejected and the review was also dismissed. Puran Singh filed another petition and while it was pending, he issued letters addressed to two secretaries of Government of India and administrative member of the tribunal, making remarks which were uncalled for.

During arguments he was asked about the letters issued by him and he was also questioned about the legal points upon which he made disparaging remarks in a packed courtroom and disturbed the proceedings of the court by his conduct and words. When the bench started dictating orders, he tried to move out while passing some comments. Puran Singh was charge sheeted to show cause as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against him.

After hearing his submissions, the bench observed that Puran Singh had admitted to the issuance of letters which were held to be sent with an intention of threatening the member and attempting to put pressure on him while deciding the case. It was observed that writing of such letters amounted to lowering the dignity of the tribunal. He deliberately tired to mislead the tribunal by suppressing material evidence which amounted to interference in the administration of justice, it was observed.

Deploring his behaviour, the bench observed that he had acted in the court in a manner and had used such words which lowered the dignity of the court, while refusing to abide by the directions of the bench. It was added that he commented on the orders of the tribunal which is a contemptuous act and that he was held guilty for the act of Contempt of Court.

The bench further observed that its intention in imposing punishment for Contempt of Court was to see to it that its orders were executed and nobody used words or behaved in a manner that was derogatory to the court. It was observed that the punishment was awarded to ensure that the working of the court was not taken lightly. Taking a lenient view considering his age, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days. The operation of sentence was, however, suspended for a period of 30 days for enabling him to file an appeal against the orders of the tribunal.