- (1.) The charges of having committed contempt has been accepted by Suresh Chandra, the contemnor, other Honarary Secretary, Committee of Management, S. M. College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the contemner, by Mr. V. S. Saxena, Advocate, that to argue the matter would only make the position worse, and that it would be better prudence that the contemnor, Suresh Chandra, leaves himself to the mercy of the Court.
(2.) The contempt petition was heard at length, and orders were reserved after parties had an opportunity to apprise themselves with the record of the court, afresh, and the law as applicable, in reference to the contempt. This judgment will be incomplete without the facts as already noticed by this Court in it's order dated 15/11/1990 as a consequence of which the charges had been framed. Rather than notice the facts all over again, it would be better to refer to the order of 15/11/1990, which runs as under : "This contempt petition arises out of a pending writ petition No. 16115 of 1988 : Rajneesh Saxena v. Committee of Management S. M. College, Chandausi and others. The contempt petition is directed against the acts of one Suresh Chandra, Honorary Secretary, Committee of Managemnt S. M. College, Chandausi District Moradabad. The Allegations against Suresh Chandra rest on the order of the Bench in the aforesaid writ petition which gave directions that the petitioner Rajnees Saxena, an ad hoc teacher at the institution shall be paid his salary. The conditions are set in the order. The order is reproduced below : "Issue notice. We have heard Sri P. S. Baghel holding brief of Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. G. Padia, who appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 at considerable length. We are satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of interim order. We, therefore, in modification of our order dated 29-9-1988 direct that the petitioner shall continue to work as ad hoc teacher in the respondent institution and shall be paid his salary as and when it falls due in accordance with law till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission becomes available for appointment or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law whatever is earlier." When the petitioner presented this order to the Honorary Secretary, it is alleged the he declined to follow the order. The petitioner further alleges that the opposite party Suresh Chandra in his capacity as Honorary Secretary of the College would neither permit him to join his duties nor receive the arrears of pay. The opposite party aforesaid filed a counter affidavit as a defence. In his defence he justified and accepted the position that there was an order of the Division Bench and that its compliance was not made. Thus, the opposite party gave his reasons on his defence. The petitioner replied by a rejoinder affidavit giving his submissions that the defence taken to explain away the situation on legal technicalities was wrong. What remained between the defence of the opposite party and the allegations of the petitioner was a situation that there was an ad hoc appointment on the basis of which an order of the High Court dated 19/12/1989 had to be complied with. One aspect is very significant. After the pleadings were exchanged, last of them being the rejoinder of the petitioner, served on counsel for the opposite party on 8/05/1989, and filed on record of the court on 19/07/1989, the opposite party took up another defence. This aspect is noticed in the application of the opposite party on 8/08/1989 supported by an affidavit, affirmed on 7/08/1989. In this affidavit, the opposite party took a summersault by accepting that he would now continue to permit the petitioner to work as he is ready and willing to abide by the interim order dated 9/12/1988 passed by a Bench of this High Court. The opposite party thereafter submits in his affidavit that the court consider his unqualified apology and take a lenient view of the matter and pardon the opposite party. Then came an affidavit served on the petitioner on 24/04/1990 placing on record that arrears of pay admissible to the petitioner consequent upon the order of the Division Bench is an amount of Rs. 38,373. In this affidavit he submits that it is beyond his power to pass bills as the salary bills have to be passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The record must be set right in reference to the present contempt petition. That the issue in this case is not as to who has to pass the bills but who occasions denial of the salary and recognition of the petitioner as an ad hoc teacher. In para 7 of the supplementary affidavit served on the opposite party on 11/04/1990 there is an averment to the effect that the opposite party threatened the petitioner that should he desire recall of the termination order then he must withdraw his contempt petition. A reply to this paragraph is given in the counter to the supplementary affidavit received by the petitioner on 24/04/1990 and sworn on the same date. In the allegations made by the petitioner on 24/04/1990 and sworn on the same date. On the allegations made by the petitioner this opposite party terms the petitioner's submissions "cock and bull story narrated by the petitioner". This aspect is not relevant but becomes one by subsequent events on record. The contemnor offered his apology unconditionally in Aug. 1989 by an affidavit. The matter came up before this court on 2/01/1990. After it was heard it was demonstrated to the court that the stay order of the Division Bench dated 9/12/1989 had yet to be complied with. Clearly the record stood as compromising the order of the Division Bench after the apology had been tendered and the issues, thus, became one of questioning and considering on what was the apology worth if consequential steps had not been taken by the opposite party. The apology of the opposite party was, thus, now in doubt and its bona fides were suspect. Beyond this action of the opposite party the issue on which this contempt action is based, the issue did not cease. On 2/01/1990 a submission had been made on behalf of the opposite party, by a Senior Advocate, appearing for him, that he will ensure that the salary as is payable on an ad hoc teacher, strictly according to the direction in the order of 7/12/1988, is delivered to the petitioner on this assurance the court gave no directions. This court set on record of the order sheet the following observations : "In these circumstances this court considers it appropriate in the interest of justice that the said respondent must have an opportunity to comply with the court's order. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks one month's time to comply with the order of 9-12-1989". When the apology was given by an affidavit in August, 1989, the opposite party was simultaneously giving an undertaking that the order of the Division Bench will be complied with. Upon the forgiveness sought a further indulgence was pleaded. This court acted on the faith which the opposite party gave in an affidavit. The undertaking given in the affidavit of August 1989 was not acted upon. The opposite party was on test again. A further indulgence and opportunity was pleaded on 2/01/1990. Now the court was testing the opposite party whether he had the intention to comply with the order of the Division Bench. His intention is now available in another record being with petition No. 8241 of 1990. The record in so far as the opposite party is concerned rests thus; (a) he gave an affidavit of apology in August seeking forgiveness for past action with an assurance that he would comply with the order of the Bench of Decm. 9, 1988; (b) the assurance was not kept; (c) he sought further time to act on his assurance on 2/01/1990; (d) further time sought was one month; and (e) the assurance given on 2-1-1990 was also not kept within the time taken by opposite party. The opposite party had other designs. Disregarding the apology given to the court on an affidavit with an undertaking and further indulgence sought on 2/01/1990, he passed an order of termination against the petitioner on 27/02/1990. This left the petitioner with no recourse except to come rushing to the court by another writ petition. Another Division Bench of this High Court on 11/04/1990 stayed the termination order and gave directions to pay the salary to the petitioner. The order of the Division Bench referred to above is reproduced below : - "Issue notice. Sri N. S. Chaudhary has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1and 2. Sri N. S. Chaudhary prays for and is granted one week's time to file a counter affidavit. Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the university may also file a counter affidavit within three weeks. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit. Until further orders the operation of the order dated 27/02/1990 shall remain stayed. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner in accordance with law and continue to pay the same till further orders of this court. Sd/- S.D.A.J. Sd/- G.K.M.J. 11-4-1990. Thus, the record now makes one thing absolutely clear and beyond reasonable doubt that the affidavit of apology of the petitioner and the forgiveness which he was seeking by pleading to the court that a lenient view be taken was worthless and he had no intention of acting on his apology nor on the undertaking given to the court. A further opportunity to purge his contemptuous action was violated with impugnity, when further time taken on 2/01/1990 to act on the order of the Division Bench, the indulgence granted was abused. This brought around the court to view the situation that the apology given was only for the purposes of purchasing time and harassing the petitioner and the contemnor at every given time knew that the further indulgence which he was seeking on 2-1-1990, would not be honoured and, given an occasion, he would thwart it. The contemnor by his legal trickery is rendering the record as such that he is totally conscious of what the stay order is about, and what an apology and undertaking means and has utter disregard to the solemnly (sic) of an affidavit, the sanctity of an undertaking and respect to the orders of the court. This leaves the court with no option, judging the contemnor by the records which he has presented, to be satisfied that the contemnor is such a person who must be punished in accordance with law as he is a habitual violator of the rule of law and has disrespect for the court and is a person whose faith is not to be acted upon, and the undertaking he offers are to hood wink the court. Should this situation continue, persons like the contemnor will treat orders of this court lightly and the contemnor will encourage precipitation of apologies and undertakings, which those who will offer it, may not have the intention to act upon it. "Regard being had to all these circumstances, the contemnor must now be available at the Bar of the court so that he get an opportunity to address the court on the charges, which this court is to consider on the acts which he has occasioned. The opposite party is totally conscious of the charges on which he has to address the court which have already been indicated in this order, which for the sake of repetition, the court will make the opposite party conscious again. The opposite party is charged with violating the order of the Division Bench dated, 7/12/1988, the undertaking and apology in his affidavit filed on 8/08/1989 and the further indulgence sought and the undertaking given on 2/01/1990." "Let the contemnor have an opportunity to address this court when he appears before the Bar of this court on 27/11/1990, a date suggested by Mr. N. S. Saxena, appearing on his behalf to answer the charges against him and show cause why he ought not to be punished in accordance with law. List on 27/11/1990."
(3.) The facts as they are, what the court has to consider is how justice must treat the contemnor, in law, On behalf of the contemnor the only argument which has been made is that he leaves the entire matter at the mercy of the court. The argument, in effect, accepts the charges and the facts, of having shown contempt to the orders of the Court. The contemnor, thus, pleads guilty and seeks mercy. In ordinary parlance this is known as contrition. In the jurisprudence which governs the law of contempt there are parameters within which an act of contrition is to be judged.;