Judgment Order No. 5 dt. 25.9.1991 At the very outset Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned lawyer appearing for the applicant, has stated before us that a very unfortunate decision has to be taken by him. As the petitioner is a poor man and for some reason or other, in spits of a very serious situation having taken place in this case for which he sought the relief from this court by way of filing a contempt petition, he has instructed. Mr. Jha to withdraw this application for contempt against the District Magistrate concerned. However, Mr. Jha has pointed out that as an advocate of this court, he is an officer of the Court, and he has a duty to perform so far as the Court is concerned. Accordingly, though he asks for leave to withdraw the formal application filed by the petitioner for contempt against the contemner respondent, he draws the attention of the Court to the incident and request the Court to proceed in contempt suo motu against the contemner-respondent on the basis of the materials disclosed in the petition for contempt. We consider that this is a very fair and proper stand taken on the part of Mr. Jha. As a lawyer, he has to act on the instructions of his client. But, as an Officer of the Court he has superior duty to protect the interest of justice and the dignity and prestige of the Court. 2. Accordingly, we allow the formal application made by the petitioner to be withdrawn, as not pressed. However, on the basis of the allegations/averments disclosed in the pleadings, we initiate a contempt proceeding against respondent (opposite party) no. 2 suo motu for wilful violation of the order of Court upon mentioning by Mr. Jha, an Advocate of the court. The Court can, and shall take into consideration all materials brought to its notice by any person or persons interested in upholding the dignity of the Court. We shall take into consideration all materials brought to its notice by any person or person interested in upholding the dignity of the Court. We shall proceed with this contempt matter suo motu. 3. Learned Advocate General has indicated that though he was initially appearing as Advocate General of the State in the formal application by the petitioner, as an Officer of the Court he has also a duty to perform. We shall proceed with this contempt matter suo motu. 3. Learned Advocate General has indicated that though he was initially appearing as Advocate General of the State in the formal application by the petitioner, as an Officer of the Court he has also a duty to perform. As such, he does not oppose the prayer of Mr. Jha. Moreover, he does not want to insist on any formality in the matter of a suo motu contempt proceedings. Therefore, the rule already issued be treated as a suo motu rule issued in this case and the pleadings/affidavits in the formal petition will be treated as pleadings/affidavits in the suo motu case. It may be recorded that the respondent contemner is present in Court and he has also expressly stated that he has no objection to such procedure being followed. The learned Advocate General has further stated that he will appear on behalf of the contemner-respondent as desired by the contemner-respondent. Order No. 6 dt. 25.9.1991 4. Let it be recorded that we examined the alleged contemner respondent, during the course of which he has stated that the relevant file and record which will support his evidence, is lying with him at Patna at the place where he is staying for the time being, the address being road no. 23, Shrikrishna Nagar. We direct the alleged contemner respondent to go to his residence and collect the file immediately. The Peshkar of our Court is hereby directed to accompany him to his residence so that the records may be brought safely. The Peshkar shall carry with him a large envelope and then and there in his presence he will put the said record in the envelope and seal the same. If it is so desired, the junior of Mr. Jha and the junior of Advocate General shall be entitled to accompany the Peshkar. Let it be recorded that we further direct the alleged contemner not to contact any other person until he comes back to this Court for further examination. Order No.7 dt. 25.9.1991 5. In this matter we have asked the contemner-respondent to depose with reference to the record which he has shown. Such deposition is complete and he has stated that he has nothing further to add or state. As it is past 4 O'clock we fix this matter tomorrow morning for submission by the learned Advocates. Order No.7 dt. 25.9.1991 5. In this matter we have asked the contemner-respondent to depose with reference to the record which he has shown. Such deposition is complete and he has stated that he has nothing further to add or state. As it is past 4 O'clock we fix this matter tomorrow morning for submission by the learned Advocates. After that we shall pass necessary order. We direct the contemner respondent not to leave Patna and to be present in Court tomorrow at 10.30 A.M. Order No. 8 dt. 26.9.1991 6. Let it be recorded that the statement as taken down has been signed by him (the alleged contemner) and it is further ditected that when it is finally typed, it will be signed by him again. 7. Let it also be recorded that the learned Advocate-General was invited to address the Court on the sentence now that the contemner admitted his guilt and offered unconditional apology. The Advocate General stated that the apology tendered by him should be accepted and no further sentence be passed on him. 8. The present contempt proceedings have been initiated pursuant to an allegation that the order dated 3.5.91 passed by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2601 of 1991 has been willingly disobeyed by the Collector, Samastipur (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the contemner'). 9. The short fact& of the case are as follows : The aforesaid writ application was filed by one Manoj Kumar Jha (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner'). On 8.6.1988 he was posted as Block Development Officer, in Sarairanjan block of Samastipur. It appears that by a notification dated 23.3.91 issued by the State Government transfer of several B.D.O's including the petitioner was made. But before the petitioner could be transferred pursuant to the said notification, the Election Commission through its telecommunication dated 23.3.91 stayed the transfer of the officers connected with the election work with effect from 25th March, 1991. In spite of all these, the contemner by his order dated 23rd March, 1991, directed the petitioner that he should hand over charge immediately to Shri Sheo Kumar Rai, who was transferred in his place and report to his parent department. In spite of all these, the contemner by his order dated 23rd March, 1991, directed the petitioner that he should hand over charge immediately to Shri Sheo Kumar Rai, who was transferred in his place and report to his parent department. Against this order the petitioner approached the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar who by his order dated 2.4.1991 took the view that the order of the contemner is wholly against the directives of the Election Commission and accordingly, it was stayed forthwith. 10. The petitioner filed aforesaid writ petition before this court with a grievance that inspite of the above referred orders of the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, the Respondents were determined to effect his transfer and, accordingly, he prayed that his order of transfer be stayed by this Court. 11. After giving due opportunity to the Respondents and on hearing the learned State Counsel, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction that the transfer order in respect of the petitioner shall not be given effect to till the election. 12. The admitted position is that the aforesaid order passed by this court was not obeyed by the contemner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Contempt petition before this court on 28.6.1991. What transpired in the Contempt proceedings will be apparent from the various orders passed by us, therefore, it need not be repeated here, Yesterday while deposing before this Court, the attitude and the stand taken by the contemner was that he was justified in not complying with the orders aforesaid in view of some other orders passed by this court in some other writ application concerning some other persons and, in view of this situation, he had sought for legal opinion from the Government Pleader as also instruction from the Government, However, when the matter was called on today for argument, learned Advocate General appearing for the contemner-Respondent. who is present in the Court, on his instruction, submitted that the contemner is admitting his guilt and he is no longer relying upon or repeating the explanation offered by him in justification of his action and conduct rather he is tendering his unconditional apology to this Court. The contemner himself has also made statement to that effect in the Court which was also recorded in writing and the typed copy of which he has acknowledged by putting his signature therein. The contemner himself has also made statement to that effect in the Court which was also recorded in writing and the typed copy of which he has acknowledged by putting his signature therein. This is to the following effect. We direct that the original be kept as part of the records of this case:- Q. As the matter was called for hearing the Advocate-General has stated that you want to tender unqualified apology for your conduct. What do you say to that ? A. Yes, I tender my unqualified apology to the Court. Q. Do you tender unconditional apology to the Court? Admittedly, you have wilfully violated order of this Court and you do not offer any explanation. You offered yesterday that in view of another order passed by the High Court in another matter you could not comply with this order. A. I tender my unqualified apology and I do not rely or repeat on such explanations. 13. In this view of the matter, though it is not strictly necessary for us to go into the detailed facts, but we shall set out some of them for the purpose of our consideration as to what order/sentence is to be passed. These facts will show that the Respondent-contemner has acted in a wilful and deliberate disobedience/violation of the orders passed by this Court. In this respect learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the contemner has submitted that as the contemner has now tendered unqualified apology this should be accepted and no further sentence should be passed. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, who very ably assisted the Court as amicus curiae, submitted that when the matter was called today he was prepared to make his submissions on the basis of the stand taken by the contemner yesterday and that he was going to request the Court to hold that the contemner was guilty of gross contempt and that he should be sentenced to imprisonment for a suitably long period. He has submitted that, however in view of admission of guilt and tendering of apology today, he leaves the matter entirely to the Court and invites the Court to pass such order as it thinks fit. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the contemner-respondent and also by Mr. Tara Kant Jha appearing as amicus curiae. 14. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the contemner-respondent and also by Mr. Tara Kant Jha appearing as amicus curiae. 14. It is now settled that the tender of unqualified apology is a matter to be considered by the Court but it is not the law that merely because after justifying his conduct throughout, at the fag end of the proceeding when an apology is tendered when it becomes clear to the Contemner that the Court was not going to accept his explanation, that such apology must be accepted and no other order is to be passed. This would encourge the litigants, particularly when they are senior officers of the Government, to flout the orders of the Court with impunity. Reference may be made in this connection to Principal, Rajni Parekh Arts. K.B. Commerce and B.C.J. Science College and another v. Mahendra Ambalal Sah (A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 1074) and Balram Singh v. Bhikram Chand Jain (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1726). In this connection we refer to the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which are set out herein below :- Art. 215 (1) : "Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself." Sec. 12 (1) : "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.-An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bonafide." 15. In this case admittedly the order of the Court was not complied with by the contemner. The case sought to be made out by him while deposing before the Court is not supported by the facts submitted by him or the office records produced by him. In this case admittedly the order of the Court was not complied with by the contemner. The case sought to be made out by him while deposing before the Court is not supported by the facts submitted by him or the office records produced by him. It appears from the office record produced by him that the order of the' Court was brought to his attention by his staff and officers dealing with the establishment and transfer including the District Development Officer, clearly opining that in view of the order passed by this Court, Sri Manoj Kumar Jha, the petitioner, should be allowed to continue on the post of B.D.O. Sarairanjan. But the contemner, for the reasons best known to him, instead of complying with the order of this Court, without assigning any reason on 13.5.91 made a cryptic endorsement on the note-sheet to the effect that "Obtain opinion from the Government lawyer". The letter by which the advice of the Government Pleader was sought also does not spell out as to why and on what point the legal opinion was being sought. It further reveals from the file that the learned Government Pleader by his letter dated 16th May, 1991, which was addressed to the contemner, after referring to the facts' obtaining from the file which was sent to him, clearly opined that" The aforesaid interim order dated 3.5.91 passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the said writ is to be obeyed." In spite of all these the contemner did not still feel inclined to comply with the order of this Court though the opinion of the learned Government Pleader was specifically brought to his notice by none else than the District Development Officer himself as would appear from the noting dated 16.5.91 on the note-sheet of the file. On the contrary the contemner passed another order on 16.5.91 itself on persual of the said noting directing that some officer should go to the Government lawyer at Patna with the' relevant papers for filing a counter affidavit for re view of the order in question. The record of the case does not show that except passing of this order any effort was made by sending any officer to Patna or by filing any application to that effect in this Court. The record of the case does not show that except passing of this order any effort was made by sending any officer to Patna or by filing any application to that effect in this Court. Instead the contemner preferred to write a letter dated 5.6.91 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, asking for his advice in the matter after asking legal opinion. In reply whereof the joint Secretary to the Government by his order dated 16th July, 1991, asked the contemner to explain as to on what point any legal advice is sought in the matter, After filing of the present contempt petition and issue of notice to the contemner with a direction to be present in person in the Court, he again wrote a letter to the Joint Secretary of the Rural Development Department on 3.9.91 seeking his advice. The only explanation sought to be given by him in his evidence yesterday as to why he did not comply with the Court's order was that there was another order of the High Court in another matter. This explanation even if he had not withdrawn today, is liable to be rejected by us in toto inasmuch as it is totally mala fide, an afterthought and false since it is not borne out from the office records placed before us. There is no reference to any other order of this court in the office records of the contemner particularly in "the noting file". In the circumstances, the contemner cannot by offering an apology at this late stage, demand that we should let him go away from this Court without passing any other order. 16. We have considered this matter very carefully. We consider that it will be setting a bad example for the Court, the administration, the litigant public of this State and the lawyers, if we accept his apology offered at this stage after such a stand taken by him throughout. In any view of the matter, we do not consider such explanation to be a bonafide tender of apology. This is a belated apology made when he realised that the Court is not going to believe his explanation, which was false and which was inconsistent with his own office records. As a matter of fact, he himself has withdrawn such explanation today while tendering apology. In these circumstances, we pass the following order/sentence: 17. This is a belated apology made when he realised that the Court is not going to believe his explanation, which was false and which was inconsistent with his own office records. As a matter of fact, he himself has withdrawn such explanation today while tendering apology. In these circumstances, we pass the following order/sentence: 17. The contemner-respondent, Shri Kalika Prasad Sinha, shall undergo one day's imprisonment. This order of imprisonment shall be carried out by his being detained in the chambers of the Registrar of the Court till the rising of the Court. We also direct that he shall pay a fine to the extent of rupees one thousand. If this fine is not deposited within seven days from this date, he will undergo imprisonment for another two months. 18. We may point out that we would have passed a stiffer sentence had this apology not been tendered today, though belatedly. 19. Let this matter come up before us on Tuesday, the 8th of October, 1991, after report by the office. 20. We place on record our appreciation of the very fair stand taken by Mr. Tara Kant Jha. He has assisted this Court ably and fairly. We place on record our appreciation of the stand taken by Mr. Jha for maintaining the dignity and prestige of this High Court. 21. Let a copy of this order the made over to Mr. T.K. Jha by the Registrar. 22. We shall pass suitable orders regarding the records produced in this case later on. 23. Let a copy of this order/sentence be forwarded/supplied to all concerned.