D.N.Baruah,J.— This appeal under section 19 (1) (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 12 of the Contempt of Courts (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.8.94 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Original Petition (Contempt) No. 275 of 1993 convicting the appellant and another under the Contempt of Courts Act and sentencing them to undergo one month's imprisonment in addition to a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two weeks each. Besides this, the learned Single Judge also directed the appellant and another to pay the cost of the contempt petition which was assessed at Rs.2,000/-. 2. The fact of the case for the purpose of this appeal may be stated as follows: The respondent in this appeal filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No.795 of 1992) challenging the order dated 24.5.91 issued by the Executive Engineer, Nalbari Division (Irrigation), Nalbari whereby the respondent was reverted to the post of Work Charge Khalasi in place of Regular Khalasi. After tiling of the writ petition, usual notices were issued and received by the then Secretary, Irrigation and also the Chief Engineer. Thereafter, letters were written to the Registrar (Judicial) requesting him to furnish the details of the case to facilitate the Secretary and the Chief Engineer to take appropriate action. Later on, the Secretary received a letter from the Government Advocate Sri BL Singh asking for parawise comments. However, no details were received by them. Correspondence went on. Meanwhile, the Executive Engineer, Nalbari in compliance with the interim order dated 20.4.92 passed by this Court, by his letter dated 28.5.92 asked the respondent (writ petitioner) to receive her arrear monthly salary. The respondent (writ petitioner), however, refused to receive the same. In spite of repeated reminders, the appellant did not receive any further information regarding the case. The appellant took over charge of Chief Engineer (Irrigation) on 1.7.93 and on 10.9.93 the appellant received the copy of the order dated 1.6.93 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 795 of 1992. On receipt of this, the appellant immediately wrote to the Executive Engineer to inform the Government for taking necessary action. He also by his letter dated 18.10.93 requested the Registry to extend the time. On receipt of this, the appellant immediately wrote to the Executive Engineer to inform the Government for taking necessary action. He also by his letter dated 18.10.93 requested the Registry to extend the time. He also requested the Executive Engineer to send a copy of the order of the writ petition to enable him to know about the case. The appellant not being the appointing authority asked the appointing authority i.e. the Executive Engineer to take steps for compliance of the order passed by this Court. Neither the appellant nor the Secretary, Irrigation was informed about the initial appointment of the respondent (writ petitioner) nor her reversion to the post of Work Charge Khalasi and, as such, the action of the Executive Engineer was not at all known to the appellant. Besides, the appellant was never informed about the writ petition and the direction of this Court till the receipt of the notice from this Court. The appellant filed an affidavit-in-opposition in the contempt proceeding explaining the matter in detail and stating that he was fully conscious about the status and dignity of this Court and, as such, he had no intention to violate the order to this Court. He further stated that though he was not the authority to implement the order of this Court he felt that it was his duty to see that the direction given by this Court was complied with within the time and, accordingly, he asked the Executive Engineer to take necessary steps in the matter. After considering all the aspects, by judgment and order dated 8.8.94 passed in COP (C) No. 275 of 1993, the learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him and another under the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India and sentenced them as aforesaid. While disposing of the contempt matter the learned Single Judge considered the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the appellant and also the provisions of law regarding contempt of Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the present appeal has been filed. 3. We heard both sides. 4. Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that the appellant had no intention to show disrespect to the Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order the present appeal has been filed. 3. We heard both sides. 4. Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case would indicate that the appellant had no intention to show disrespect to the Court. It would also reveal from the record that non-compliance of the direction was not because of wilful disobedience. 5. 'Civil Contempt' under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. In order to bring within the ambit of civil contempt it has to be proved that there has been a disobedience of an order passed by a Court and this disobedience is wilful. The word 'Wilful' has the same meaning in law of contempt as in other branches of law. The disobedience of orders of Court in order to constitute punishable contempt must be wilful. Mere unintentional disobedience to a judgment or order or process of a Court may amount to contempt in theory only, but it will not render the respondent liable to punishment. The knowledge of an order of a Court and deliberate disregard of it are essential to constitute a contempt. Mere inaction on the part of the Government officer to take any action as directed by the Court may not always amount to contempt of Court. If, however, the conduct of a particular Government servant whose duty is to give effect to the order passed by the Court shows that he has wilfully and deliberately refrained from complying with the order of the Court may amount to contempt. Therefore, in order to constitute a contempt it must be specifically proved from the records that the officer whose duty is to comply with the direction has wilfully and negligently disobeyed the order. Ordinarily, in the case of civil contempt, the Courts are always reluctant to interfere unless the disobedience to the Court's order issued for the benefit of a third party is wilful. The violation of order and wilfulness in that violation - both must be proved to punish a person for contempt. 6. Ordinarily, in the case of civil contempt, the Courts are always reluctant to interfere unless the disobedience to the Court's order issued for the benefit of a third party is wilful. The violation of order and wilfulness in that violation - both must be proved to punish a person for contempt. 6. In the present case the appellant has categorically stated that he was not the appointing authority and therefore, it was not for him to comply with the direction given by this Court. Even though he is not the appointing authority, he asked the Executive Engineer - the appointing authority of the respondent to comply with the direction of the Court. The appellant submitted that he had no intention to disobey the order. In spite of that if for some reasons it was found that he had committed contempt for non-compliance of the order the unconditional apology tendered by him might be accepted. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the appellant had wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. 7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that there was wilful disobedience on the part of the appellant and we are of the opinion that he is not liable to be punished. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. Bail bond shall be discharged.