- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Pharmacy, Patti District Amritsar, in 1990. On May 8, 1991, an Experience Certificate was issued to him, which in the opinion of the petitioner, was, in fact, an order of dismissal from service. Apprehending that this certificate would be treated as an order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 1991 in this Court, praying for order or direction that the Experience/Dismissal order should be quashed On notice of motion having been issued to the respondent in the writ petition, a reply was filed by the Principal of the College and on November 19,1991, the writ petition was disposed of and the following order was passed:- "In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the course of arguments as well as in para 6 of the written statement wherein they have specifically stated that the petitioner has not been removed from the College rolls, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous." Fortified by the order afore quoted, the petitioner served a legal notice dated January 21, 1982, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, pointing out that despite the order of the Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 1991, the petitioner was not being taken back in service and this inaction of the respondent amounted to Contempt of Court. To the notice Annexure P-2, a reply Annexure P-3 dated January 24,1992, was given by the respondent, herein, in which it was stated inter aha, that the respondent had not terminated the services of the petitioner and that he had in fact absented himself with effect from May 8,1991. Annexure P-3 went on to state that vide resolution/order dated December 20, 1991 of the Managing Committee of the School, the services of the petitioner had been terminated and he was no more in service of the Institution. It is the conceded cases that the order dated December 20,1991, has not been challenged in any forum so far. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the notice served on the respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition, praying fiat as the orders of this Court dated November 19,1991 have been flouted, it amounted to Contempt of Court. The respondent has filed a reply in answer to the contempt petition and in addition to the various legal issues raised with regard to the maintainability of Civil Writ Petition No. 7663 of 199L Mr. Syal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also urged that a case of civil contempt was not made out in view of the definition given in section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the stand of the petitioner. The categorical assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the order Annexure P-l appended therewith which was an Experience Certificate was, in fact, by necessary implication, an order of dismissal. This assertion was controverted in para 6 of the written statement in which it was stated that the petitioner had never been dismissed and it was on this assertion as also the oral statement made that the order of this Court dated November 19,1991 was made. The question now arises is whether this attempt on the part of the respondent to mis-lead this Court resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition, amounted to civil contempt or not. Civil contempt means not only wilful disobedience of the order, judgment, decree, direction, writ or other process of the Court, but also wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. In my view, the order dated November119,1981 was, infact, a direction or order given by this Court on the statement made by the respondent and it was on that basis that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent is guilty of having committed Civil Contempt of this Court.
(3.) As already indicated above, the order of dismissal dated December 20,1991, which was passed after the orders of this Court, has not been challenged by the petitioner in any forum so far. As such, the question of his reinstatement does not arise. The liability of the respondent, however, for the contempt that he has committed, still remains and, accordingly, while convicting him for the contempt, I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment thereof to a sentence of one week's simple imprisonment. With the above said observations, the present Contempt Petition is disposed of.;