Hon'ble V.S.DAVE, J. - (1.) - An application purported to be one under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, has been filed with a prayer that the contempt proceedings be initiated and suitable punishment should be awarded to the non-pstitioners one of whom is Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operative Society, Rajasthan, for not implementing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, the then Chief Justice of this Court and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farooq Hasan, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/1987, in letter and spirit and they showed deliberate disrespect towards the order of this Court. In view of the fact that learned brother Hon'ble M.C. Jain had since been transferred from this Court to Delhi High Court as Chief Justice, this case was marked to this bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(2.) THOUGH none has appeared for the petitioner still we have perused the entire record and the relevant law, as the matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemner. The contempt alleged is against the order which was an agreed order and which runs as under: - "Accordingly, in view of the above agreement the directions given by the Tribunal are further modified and the respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to redetermine the seniority of the petitioners and private respondents in these writ petitions after arriving at the finding of their dates of substantive appointment. The re-determination shall be made within a period of two months. The observations made by the Tribunal would not come in the way of the Government and further as a result of redetermination of seniority. Consequence would automatically follow and the consequential orders may be passed within a period of further two months. These writ petitions are disposed-of with the above observations and directions." The petitioner's grievance is that despite aforesaid directions respondents did not re-determine the seniority and inspite of his representations. He submitted that a seniority list was published on 30.07.1990, but the name of the petitioner has not been placed at proper number and this was done mala-fide. His grievance is that Rule 15 (I) of the Absorption of Surplus Personal Rules, 1969, has not been properly read and followed which was to be done, it being the spirit of the order passed by this Court. On these allegations, the contempt application was admitted and notice was issued on 28.04.1992. Detailed reply has been filed to the petition on behalf of the respondents denying the facts mentioned in the contempt petition. It is stated in reply that the petitioner has not been denied any right and the judgment dated 17.01.1990, has been implemented in the right perspective and in accordance with the provisions of law. It has been submitted that the respondents have issued the seniority list as was directed on 30.07.1990, and the copy of which was given to the petitioner through Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank, Jaipur, where he was working on deputation. It is submitted that if he has any grievance he can afresh challenge the order but cannot move a contempt application as there is no dis-obedience of the order of this Court. Contemners have also tendered apology and have submitted that they have utmost respect of the order of the Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the contemners and perused the record made available to us. A compromise order was passed by this Court on 17.01.1990, and in terms of the agreement, the re-determination of seniority was ordered to be done within two months. The redetermination was delayed and for that the respondents had tendered their un-conditional apology. They submitted that in following the procedure, time was consumed because number of formalities had to be completed.
(3.) THEIR submission is that moment order of this Court was conveyed to them, they started the exercise and looked into relevant laws applicable to petitioner's case and using their best judgment, they have issued fresh list in full compliance of the order of this Court. It is submitted that law has been applied as is done in each case and if the interpretation is not correct a fresh cause of action accross which can be challenged in separate proceedings. A serious questions have come-up for consideration in this case as to whether the proceedings for contempt of Court should be initiated for getting enforcement of an order passed by this Court when dispute is raised about the manaer and the method applied for implementation of the order and whether rowing and fishing enquiries are called for unless there are allegations of mala-fide or deliberate dis-obedience or disrespect are specifically made in contempt application and further whether proceedings can be initiated without foundation having been led in the petition specifically and whether any illegality done in re-determination of a seniority as per honest interpretation of the Rules, can it be adjudicated in the contempt application. Contempt of Court in common parlance is associated with the con duct of a person which tends to bring the authority of Court and administration of law into dis-respect or attempts to interfere with proceedings or pressurize th2 parties to give particular statements or their witnesses during litigation or in any manner lowers the dignity of the Court or the majesty of law. There are two types of contempt; one is "Criminal Contempt" and the another is "Civil Contempt" "Civil Contempt" with which we are concerned in this case has been defined as under - "Civil Contempt": - means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court." Thus, wilful disobedience is the gravemen of a charge for contempt, say is a 'Civil Contempt'. The necessary corollary to this is that if dis obedience is neither calculated to undermine the authority of the Court nor is wilful is not a civil contempt. The expression wilful conotes purposeful and intentional flouting of any order. In other words, mensria is an essential ingredients of the offence of contempt where-ever dis-obedience of the order is alleged in order to see as to whether the contemner is guilty of contempt or not. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether his intention in deliberately doing of an act or forbiding to do an act ordered by the Court is wilful ? In doing so even if he has done in ignorance of law something contrary to the order of the Court, in some circumstances, he may be said to be guilty of contempt but if he has carried-out the order with the best intention in manner he has understood the order and if there is an accidental error in doing so, there is no contempt. It is therefore, the nature of the order passed by the Court and the action done in pursuance of the order has to be looked into carefully. Legal position in this respect has been considered time and again by various Courts. ;