JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Sishodia, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to delete name of respondent No.2- Dr. S.K. Solomon, Chief Medical & Health Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara, from the array of respondents, as he is not a necessary party.Permission granted.Heard Shri Sishodia, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhansali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal against the order dated 10th June, 1992, passed by the trial court, convicting the appellant, who is a Doctor, for contempt and sentencing him to suffer one month's civil imprisonment and attachment of property, for not complying with the ex-parte ad interim order passed by the Court. 3. The respondent No.1 was a Nurse. It was alleged that she was surplus and, therefore, she was transferred. The trial court refused stay on 12.9.1990 against which she preferred an appeal on 13.9.1990 and obtained an order of status quote at 3.45 p.m. on 13.9.1990, the appellant issued relieving order. The case of the appellant was that before the stay order was served, she was relieved. The case of the respondent No.1 was that she was forcibly prevented from resuming the duty. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court found that the appellant has flouted the order of the court and, therefore, convicted him for contempt as stated earlier. 4. In appeal, the appellant has tendered his unconditional apology. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant himself is transferred. The order of conviction was dated 10th June, 1992. Nearly three years have passed. The impugned order was stayed by this Court while admitting it on 18.6.1992. In view of all these facts, I am of the opinion that the un-conditional apology tendered by the appellant must be accepted and it is accepted. Once the un-conditional apology is accepted, the order of conviction and sentence as also the order of attachment of property, passed by the trial court must go and accordingly, the same is set aside. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Mr. Once the un-conditional apology is accepted, the order of conviction and sentence as also the order of attachment of property, passed by the trial court must go and accordingly, the same is set aside. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 stated that the respondent No.1 has not been given salary for the period of two years, for which the respondent No.1 shall make a proper representation before the appropriate authority and, I am sure as and when such a representation is made, the authority shall sympathetically consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Mr. Bhansali also pointed out that this Court, by the mandatory order directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 and accordingly she was reinstated, therefore, she may be allowed to continue on the same post, till her appeal against the interim order passed by the trial court is decided.The request is reasonable and it is granted. The appellate court shall decide the appeal against the interim order as early as possible, preferably before July 31, 1995.Appeal Allowed. *******