JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This contempt petition arises out of a pending writ petition No. 16115 of 1988 - Rajneesh Saxena v. Committee of Management S.M. College, Chandattsi and others. The contempt petition is directed against the acts of one Suresh Chandra, Honorary Secretary, Committee of Management S. M. Chandausi, district Moradabad. The allegations against Suresh Chandra rests on the order of the Bench in the aforesaid writ petition which gave directions that the petitioner Rajneesh 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 29-8-1988 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.". 2. When the petitioner presented this order to the Honorary Secretary, it is alleged that 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 9th December, 1989 had to be complied with. 3. One aspect is very significant. 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 9th December, 1989 had to be complied with. 3. 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 8th May, 1989, and filed on record of the court on 19th July, 1989 the opposite party took up another defence. This aspect is noticed in the application of the opposite party on 8th August, 1989 supported by an affidavit, affirmed on 7th August, 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 9th December, 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 takes a lenient view of the matter and pardon the opposite party. Then came an affidavit served on the petitioner on 24th April, 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. 4. In paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit served on the opposite party on 11th April, 1990 there is an averment to the effect that the opposite party threatened the petitioner that should be 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 24th April, 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". A reply to this paragraph is given in the counter to the supplementary affidavit received by the petitioner on 24th April, 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 contemner offered his apology unconditionally in August, 1989 by an affidavit. The matter came up before this court on 2nd January, 1990. After it was heard it was demonstrated to the court that the stay order of the Division Bench dated 9th December, 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 issue, 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. 5. Beyond this action of the opposite party the issue on which this contempt action is based, the issue did not cease. On 2nd January, 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 to an ad hoc teacher, strictly according to the direction in the order of 7th December, 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 courts order. Learned Counsel for the respondent seek one month's time to comply with the order of 9-12-1989." 6. 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 2nd January, 1990. 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 2nd January, 1990. 7. Now the court was testing the opposite party whether he had the intention to comply with the order of the Division Bench. 8. His intention is now available in another record being Writ 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 9th December, 1988. (b) the assurance was not kept; (c) he sought further time to act on his assurance on 2nd January, 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. 9. The opposite party had other designs. 10. Disregarding the apology given to the court on an affidavit with an undertaking and further indulgence sought on 2nd January, 1990, he passed an order of termination against the petitioner on 27th January, 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 April, 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 respondent Nos. 1 and 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 27th February. 1990 shall remain stayed. The respondent 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." 11. Until further orders the operation of the order dated 27th February. 1990 shall remain stayed. The respondent 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." 11. 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 impunity, when further time taken on 2nd January, 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 only for the purposes of purchasing time and harassing the petitioner and the contemner 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. 12. The contemner 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 solemnity of an affidavit, the sanctity of an undertaking and respect the orders of the court. 13. This leaves the court with no option, judging the contemner by the records which he has presented, to be satisfied that the contemner 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 hoodwink the court. Should this situation continue, person like the contemner will treat orders of this Court lightly and the contemner will encourage precipitation of apologies and undertaking, which those who will offer it, may not have the intention to act upon it. 14. Should this situation continue, person like the contemner will treat orders of this Court lightly and the contemner will encourage precipitation of apologies and undertaking, which those who will offer it, may not have the intention to act upon it. 14. Regard being had to all these circumstances, the contemner must now be a variable at the par of the court so that he gets an opportunity to address the court on the charges, which this Court is to consider on the acts which he has occasioned. 15. 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 repetition, the court will make the opposite party conscious again. The opposite party is charged with violating the order of the Division Bench dated 7th December, 1988, the undertaking and apology in his affidavit filed on 8th August, 1989 and the further indulgence sought and the undertaking given on 2nd January, 1990. 16. Let the contemnor have an opportunity to address this Court when he appears before the Bar of this Court on 27th November, 1990, a date suggested by Mr. V. 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. 17. List on 27th November, 1990.