- (1.) The undisputed facts of the case are that in Civil Writ Petition No. 7163 of 1990, the petitioner was granted the following interim relief by this Court on 16th May, 1990 : "To come up after decision of SLP No. 16471 (Civil) of 1989. Status quo regarding service meanwhile." The copy of this order was duly served on respondent No. 3 on 4the June, 1990. In spite of that, the terminated the services of the petitioner on 9th September, 1990, though he was reemployed with effect from 28th January, 1991. The discontinuation of services of the petitioner, as per the stand of the respondent, was ordered on account of the non-availability of work. That may be so, but the fact remains that the order of this Court was violated with impunity. In case, the respondent was to seek any instruction or clarification the matter because of the non-availability of work, he had to make a move for obtaining proper order from this Court. He could not just ignore the order for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, I am satisfied that this respondent is patently guilty of contempt of Court and deserves to be punished for the same.
(2.) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the petitioner has been re-employed, I think the sentence of fine with simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court would serve the ends of justice. Therefore, respondent No. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as fine, within a week from today. In case of default, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for a week. It deserves to be pointed out here that though the respondent has also tendered a qualified apology that "In case this Hon'ble Court finds that the deponent has in any way violated the direction of this Hon'ble Court, he regrets the same and begs to be pardoned", yet I am of the opinion that it deserves no acceptance, particularly when he has tried to justify his action also. Besides this, he did not pay any heed to the legal notice served on him by the petitioner prior to the filing of the present contempt petition. The receipt of the notice by him is clearly admitted in para No. 5 of his affidavit. It is thus patent that neither the above noted apology is bonafide nor does it show any contrition on the part of the respondent. Therefore, the same is rejected.;