Judgment 1. Radha Mohan Prasad, J.-By this application, the petitioners pray for initiation of a contempt proceeding against Shri Ajay Kumar, Director, directorate of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna (opposite party no.2) who has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court as well as the undertaking given to this Court as is mentioned in the order dated 20th may, 1996 passed in M. J. C. No.2298 of 1995 and for punishing the said opposite party for the same. 2. Petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition bearing C. W. J. C. No.4562 of 1995 in this Court seeking direction to the respondents not to absorb the surplus employees of the consolidation scheme on the post of Panchayat Sewak in pursuance of letter No.5448 dated 24-6-1989 and further for directing the respondents to send the name of the petitioner for training of a Panchayat sewak in terms of the letter of the directorate dated 15th June, 1994 and thereafter to take steps for appointment in accordance with law. 3. The court, while hearing the said writ case after noticing from the counter-affidavit filed in the said case as well as the letter of the District magistrate dated 16-8-1995 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and the. . . . . . . . (sic)of the Director dated 25-8-1995 (Annexure 9 to the writ-petition) that the proposal to adjust/absorb the services of the surplus employees of the consolidation scheme against the post of panchayat Sewak have been modified to the extent that such consideration shall be given after appointing all the Dal-patis who are duly qualified, held that there may not be any hurdle against the district Magistrate to send the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated person for training. Accordingly, the Court directed that the concerned Director shall issue necessary direction so that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons can complete their training in the batch in question. 4. However, when the said direction of this Court was not complied, petitioner No.1 filed M. J. C. No.2298 of 1995 for initiating contempt proceeding against the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram and other concerned officials and to punish them. 5. 4. However, when the said direction of this Court was not complied, petitioner No.1 filed M. J. C. No.2298 of 1995 for initiating contempt proceeding against the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram and other concerned officials and to punish them. 5. In the said contempt petition notices were issued to the opposite parties and when after several indulgences granted and direction issued to the District Magistrate to appear in person, he did not appear a warrant of arrest had to be issued against him, whereupon the district Magistrate appeared and filed a show cause. 6. After not being satisfied with the said show cause in regard to the compliance of the direction of this Court as also considering his deliberate action, the Court took serious view of the matter, whereupon a prayer was made for adjournment for filing further show cause also on the question for imposition of punishment. 7. On 23-5-1996 a supplementary show cause was filed by the District magistrate annexing a letter issued by him vide memo No.158 dated 16-5-1996 in compliance of the aforementioned order of this Court given in the connected writ case. By the aforementioned letter, 34 Dalpatis, including the present petitioners, were directed to join the central Training Institute, Brahmway at ranchi on 1st July.19% for the training of Dalpatis. It was stated in the said supplementary show cause that the resolution dated 3-12-1994 of the Selection committee for appointment of panchayat Sewak sent by the District magistrate, Rohtas had been rejected, vide Memo No.46/c dated 10-5-1996 by the Department. In paragraph 4 it was stated that after issuance of the aforementioned order, the District magistrate (opposite party No.1) had given a note to the department to send untrained 34 Dalpatis for training and thereafter the Government accepted the said proposal and the same was communicated by the Director, Panchayati raj to him. Accordingly, he decided to send them for training and all 36 untrained Dalpatis, including the petitioners, had been asked to join the training session beginning from 1st July, 1996 at Central Training Institute, brahmway, Ranchi, vide the aforesaid letter dated 16th May, 1996. 8. In view of the aforesaid subsequent action of the District magistrate, the contempt matter was dropped and the M. J. C. application was dismissed. 9. 8. In view of the aforesaid subsequent action of the District magistrate, the contempt matter was dropped and the M. J. C. application was dismissed. 9. It is stated by the petitioners that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, contained in letter dated 16-5-19%, 34 dalpatis, including the petitioners herein joined the Central Training Institute, Brahmway at Ranchi on 1st July, 1996 but their joining was not accepted by the principal of the Training Institute who told them that the Director, panchayati Raj (opposite party No.2 herein) had sent an order through fax on 29-6-1996 for not providing training to them. Thereafter the petitioners approached the Director, Panchayati Raj by filing representation on 2nd July, 1996 enclosing the order of this Court and demanded for the aforementioned fax message, which was denied to them and it is alleged that opposite party No.2 abused them. It is also stated that all 34 persons, including the petitioner are on the road despite the order of this court, pursuance to which the approval was granted by the Government and the district Magistrate issued the aforementioned letter dated 16-5-1996 directing the petitioners to joins the training on 1st July, 1996. It is thus, contended that the action of the Director (opposite party No.2) is wilful and deliberate for not complying with the order of this Court by depriving them of the training and as such his action is deliberate and contemptuous and liable for punishment. It is also claimed by them that they are entitled to get the compensation from the authority to provide justice to them. 10. In the present matter learned counsel appearing for the Director (opposite party No.2) produced a copy of the letter dated 4th July, 1996 issued by the Director on 5-7-1996 from which it appears that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the training to be commenced from 22nd July, 1996 for which a quota was fixed for them. 11. 10. In the present matter learned counsel appearing for the Director (opposite party No.2) produced a copy of the letter dated 4th July, 1996 issued by the Director on 5-7-1996 from which it appears that the petitioners were allowed to participate in the training to be commenced from 22nd July, 1996 for which a quota was fixed for them. 11. By order dated 5-7-1996, the court having failed to appreciate the said attitude of the Director in issuing the aforementioned fax message as well as the letter dated 4th July, 1996 permitting the petitioners to participate in the training to be commenced from 22nd july, 1996 and not from 1st July, 1996 pursuant to the order of the District magistrate, filed in this Court in the earlier contempt proceeding, the Director (opposite party No.2) was directed to file his show cause explaining his conduct by 8-7-96 when the Director was also directed to appear in person. 12. On 8-7-1996. The Director appeared in person and submitted his show cause. The Court, prima facie, being not satisfied gave further opportunity to opposite party No.2 to bring entire materials by filing further show cause and/or taking steps as considered proper/advised to defend himself. The matter was directed to be listed on 16th july, 19% for final hearing and disposal. 13. On 16-7-1996, the Director contemnor (opposite party No.2) was present in Court. He was asked whether he wanted further opportunity to defend himself. His answer was in negative. Hearing was concluded and 19-7-1996 was fixed for orders. 14. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 he has tried to justify his action for shifting of the date of training from 1st July, 1996 to 22nd July, 1996. It is stated that when the order for training from 1st July, 1996 was issued. He was not the Director of Panchayati Raj as he was transferred as District Magistrate, Patna where he joined on 28-3-96. However, he admits that he relinquished the charge of the District Magistrate, Patna on 27th May, 1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati Raj on the next date. It is also stated that for training, the normal practice in the Department is to send 200 Dalpatis for training and for that the file was moved for sanction of rs.2,46,150/-. However, he admits that he relinquished the charge of the District Magistrate, Patna on 27th May, 1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati Raj on the next date. It is also stated that for training, the normal practice in the Department is to send 200 Dalpatis for training and for that the file was moved for sanction of rs.2,46,150/-. According to the opposite party No.2, the aforesaid file was sent to the Finance Department On 27-5-19% after obtaining the approval of the departmental head and the Finance department made some queries in the file and returned the same on 15-6-19%. After meeting the said queries, the file was again sent to the Finance Department on 20-6-1996 and the Finance department immediately thereafter approved the amount on 21-6-1996. Pursuant to the said approval a sanction order was issued by the Rural Development Department on 28-6- 19%, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure A. 15. In paragraph 8 of the said show cause a plea has been taken that since sanction of the fund took time, as such the message was sent through fax by opposite party No.2 to the District magistrate, Rohtas as well as a copy of the same to the Principal of the Training institute. In paragraph 9 it is stated that after obtaining sanction order opposite party No.2 sent the necessary information to all the District Magistrates, including the District Magistrate, Rohtas to send the Dalpatis for training from 22-7-1996. In paragraph 11 of the show cause it is stated that the date was shifted because the sanction and approval was not received by the department prior to 21-6-1996. It is thus contended that the actions of the Director, Panchayati Raj is not wilful and deliberate and thus, the prayer in the show cause is to accept it and dismiss the contempt petition. 16. Supplementary show cause has been fied on behalf of the opposite party No.2. In paragraph 6 it is admitted that the Director (O. P.2) and other concerned authorities were advised by the learned Additional advocate-General No. III to send the persons at whose instance the order dated 26-9-1995 was passed for training of Dalpatis and necessary direction must be issued to the authorities concerned. In paragraph 6 it is admitted that the Director (O. P.2) and other concerned authorities were advised by the learned Additional advocate-General No. III to send the persons at whose instance the order dated 26-9-1995 was passed for training of Dalpatis and necessary direction must be issued to the authorities concerned. However, it is pleaded that the present opposite party No.2 was not the Director at the relevant time when, according to him, one Sri H. N. Sinha was acting as Director, Panchayati Raj. It is stated that Mr. Sinha has given a note dated 14-5-1996 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, rural Development Department for arranging training of 200 Dalpatis which was approved by the Commissioner on 15-5-1996. Thereafter Mr. Sinha ordered on 15-5-1996 that out of 200 Dalpatis, 34 Dalpatis of Rohtas will be given training which shall start from 1-7-1996 and fund be arranged in that regard and pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the department as well as of Sri Sinha, the district Magistrate, Rohtas was informed vide letter No.2554, dated 17th may, 1996. In paragraph 9 it is stated that the order of this Court dated 2-5-1996 was not sent to the Director, panchayati Raj and that the same was produced before opposite party No.2 by the petitioners along with the Representation dated 2-7-19%. In paragraph 12 it is stated that opposite party No.2 has made a query as to what happened to the training of Dalpatis and in paragraph 14 it is stated that the office gave a note to the effect that it is not possible to arrange training with effect from 1-7-1996. Thereafter the aforementioned fax message was sent. In paragraph 16 it is stated that after the adjournment of the present M. J. C. on 8-7-19%, the opposite party No.2 telephoned to the district Magistrate, Rohtas as well as the Principal, Central Training Institute, brahmway, Ranchi to send the information as to when the information about the postponement of the training was given to the petitioners. The District magistrate sent letter No.2423, dated 8-7-1996 enclosing note of the Incharge assistant, Panchayat Karyalaya, Rohtas, sasram, wherein it was stated that all the 34 Dalpatis were given information on 30-6-1996 about the postponement of the training who were shown the aforementioned fax message and asked to sign on it but they refused to sign. Thereafter a notice was hung in the panchayat Office. Thereafter a notice was hung in the panchayat Office. This note of the Incharge Assistant is of 8-7-1996. A photo copy of the said note has been annexed as Annexure C. It is stated that the second instructor, Ranchi also sent a fax message to the Director, Panchayati Raj about the information given to the Dalpatis. A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure D. The said photocopy of the letter bears 9-6-1996 as the date under the signature of the said second Instructor. 17. A rejoinder to the show cause has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. In paragraph 3 of the said rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that for the last five years the normal practice for sending training of Dalpatis was not done. However, in January, 1996 a training camp was organised but it was stopped by opposite party No.2 without assigning any reason though the said training camp was organised after the direction of this Court in the writ application filed by the Dalpatis of the district of Godda. The said Dalpatis moved this Court in contempt by filing m. J. C. No.1465 of 1995 whereafter the authorities organised the training camp after taking approval of the Government and they got the training. It is, thus, contended that it is wrong to say that normal practice is to send 200 dalpatis for training. In paragraph 6. It is stated that opposite party No.2 stopped the training by his fax message on 29-6-1996 without fixing further date and the date had been fixed by him on 4-7-1996 only after filing of this contempt petition about which learned Additional advocate-General No. III informed him on telephone. It is stated that earlier also the schedule was fixed for training but it was postponed in order to defeat the orders passed by this Court in the connected writ case. 18. In paragraph 10 of the said rejoinder it is stated that in the Training institute the petitioners were residing since 1st July, 1996 but they have been asked to return back and came again after 8th July, 19% and threatening is not being given to them that if they would not vacate the institute, they would face the consequences in the result of the training. Due to the said attitude the petitioners were forced to leave the institute on 11th July, 1996 causing them serious financial loss so much so that they were deprived of Rs.20.50 per day as allowances and other facilities like medical and travelling allowance. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the fooding and lodging has been arranged by the petitioners and other till 11th July, 1996 on their own cost. 19. Learned Additional Advocate-General No. III submitted that from the facts stated in the show cause as well as in the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, no case for contempt is made out. According to him, opposite party No.2 has taken all necessary steps for compliance of the order of this Court and his action cannot be said to be deliberate/intentional to flout or circumvent the order of this Court. 20. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Additional advocate-General. From the plea taken in the show cause and the supplementary show cause, I feel persuaded to hold that opposite party No.2 has deliberately delayed in completing all the formalities which, according to him, were required to be completed before the petitioners and others could be sent for training. He has stated that when the order was issued on 16-5-96 fixing for training to be commenced from 1-7-1996, he was not the Director, panchayati Raj. I fail to appreciate this pleas. 21. The order in the connected writ case was passed on 26-9-1995 for sending Dalpatis for training to complete the same in the batch in question. Thereafter it appears that a training was conducted in January, 1996 as is stated by the petitioner in the rejoinder which has not been denied by opposite party no.2. 22. Earlier the contempt matter was disposed of vide order dt.20-5-1996 when it was stated by the opposite party that all 34 untrained Dalpatis, including the petitioners, had been asked to join the training beginning from 1-7-1996. Admittedly, opposite party No.2 relinquished the charge of District magistrate, Patna on 27-5-1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati Raj on the next date. 22. Earlier the contempt matter was disposed of vide order dt.20-5-1996 when it was stated by the opposite party that all 34 untrained Dalpatis, including the petitioners, had been asked to join the training beginning from 1-7-1996. Admittedly, opposite party No.2 relinquished the charge of District magistrate, Patna on 27-5-1996 and joined as Director, Panchayati Raj on the next date. It is also admitted that the order dated 20-5-19% of this Court was sent to the office of the Director, panchayati Raj but still in paragraph 10 of the supplementary show case it is pleaded that the said order was produced before opposite party No.2 by the petitioners along with the representation dt.2-7-1996 for the first time, when, admittedly, the aforementioned fax message (Annexure-B) was sent by opposite party No.2 himself on 29-6-1996. Further, in paragraph 9 of the show cause filed by opposite party No.2 it is stated that after obtaining the sanction order, he sent the necessary information to all the District Magistrates. 23. From Annexures C and D of the supplementary show cause it appears that opposite party No.2 has made attempt to manufacture documents to show that the petitioners had been given information about the postponement of the date on 30th June, 1996 itself as is evident from Annexure-D, which is signed by the second Instructor on 9-6-1996 and the contents of the said document allege that the information was given to all the 34 Dalpatis at the Sasaram Bus Stand on 30-6-1996 when they were leaving for Ranchi. 24. Further, I fail to appreciate as to what was the necessity to take the approval of the Finance Department when the State Government had already accepted the proposal for sending 34 untrained Dalpatis for training and the same was communicated by the Director to the District Magistrate, Rohtas which was filed in this Court in the earlier contempt matter. However, even assuming that the approval of the Finance department was essential, even then, in my opinion, opposite party No.2 should have taken all other steps for commencement of the training from 1st July, 1996 in anticipation of the approval of the Finance Department as the Government had already accepted the proposal much before the said date. However, even assuming that the approval of the Finance department was essential, even then, in my opinion, opposite party No.2 should have taken all other steps for commencement of the training from 1st July, 1996 in anticipation of the approval of the Finance Department as the Government had already accepted the proposal much before the said date. In any view of the matter, admittedly, the Finance department and accorded its approval on 21-6-1996 itself, i. e. soon after the file was sent by the Directorate after meeting the querries on 20th June, 19%. Thus, even after 21st June, 1996 when the Finance Department had accorded its approval, there was sufficient time left for taking the necessary steps to start the training from 1st July, 1996. 25. Though by now the law stands settled by the Apex Court, yet in this case learned Additional Advocate-General No.3, who appeared for the contemnor opposite party also persuaded me to decide the question as to in what type of cases the contempt would stand established. 26. Normally, this Court has always taken very liberal view in the contempt matters. However, while hearing contempt matters for quite some time, I have noticed that some of the officers in the State Government feel that unless contempt petition is filed and, in some cases, a second contempt petition is filed, they do not care to comply the direction of the Court, even in such cases where time is fixed for compliance. This callous attitude has developed, perhaps, because this Court takes lenient view. The contempt petitions are considered as an execution proceeding by the officers in this State, inasmuch as they take it for granted that a written apology tendered in the show cause filed on their behalf would be accepted by this Court and they would be left scot free without, in any manner, being harmed. This attitude of the officers deserves to be deprecated. This attitude of the officers deserves to be deprecated. In fact, the leniency of this Court is taken by the officers of the State as giving them authority to harass the person getting relief from this Court, this has also resulted in increase in number of filing contempt petitions as well as pendency of such matters substantially, so much so that when during the years 1992 to 1990 the rate of filing was comparatively very low, it has immensely increased during the years 1991 to 1996 bringing the present number of pendency of the contempt matters in this Court to about 2,287. During the last 2-3 months, since i have been hearing contempt matters, I have noticed that in almost all cases the moment the matter is taken up and accommodation of one day or two days is granted, the order is complied by the contemnors and brought on the record by filing show cause/second show cause or producing the necessary orders/notification in this Court. From this it is evident that the authorities in the State or in any institution do not bother for compliance of the judgement/order/direction of the Court until some coercive actions are taken, such as for their personal appearance in Court or by isssuance of warrant of arrest for their personal appearance, or cost is awarded giving them opportunity to file show cause in regard to compliance of the order/direction and/or when they find that this Court would not spare for such disbbedience. 27. Out of the pendency of the contempt matters, most of the cases are against the authorities of the State government. I had requested the learned Advocate-General on earlier occasions that some solution to this problem should be evolved by the State government in order to reduce unnecessary wastage of time of this Court, the expenses and as well as to save the officials from appearance before this court, due to which the public ex-chequer has to suffer, besides that their working in the offices is hampered. I had also indicated that in case some solution is found out, that would reduce the number of pendency of contempt matters in this Court, which would give more time for disposal of many other important matters pending before this court. I had also indicated that in case some solution is found out, that would reduce the number of pendency of contempt matters in this Court, which would give more time for disposal of many other important matters pending before this court. The learned Advocate-General later, had informed that he had discussions with the Chief Secretary and other secretaries, who are heads of the various Departments and perhaps, a general instruction has been issued by the Chief Secretary. However, the contents of the said instruction is not known, but I find that there has been no improvement in this regard and still the authorities on one or the other baseless pleas, such as, an appeal before this court or before the Supreme Court has been filed against the judgment/order and the same is pending, though no interim order is passed in the appeal, the officer has been transferred from the said department and the new incumbent joined recently; the process to comply with the direction took some time and in some cases where the question of payment is involved, a plea is taken that the fund is not available I am unable to accept any of such pleas to defeat the effect of the judgment/order/direction of the court and allow the contemnors to be absolved of the responsibility of carrying out the judgment/order/direction. It is well settled that mere filing of appeal does not automatically operate as stay of the order in appeal and in absence of such stay being obtained from the appellate court or the court, which rendered the order, the order continues to be operative and non-compliance of the order in such circumstances, will amount to contempt. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R.1972 S. C.2466. 28. There may be some cases, in which the authorities may have very strong case in the appeal against the judgment and order, the non-compliance of which has been complained of in the contempt matters. But I do not see any reason, not to comply the judgment and order during mere pendency of the appeal in the absence of any stay order passed by the appellate Court. But I do not see any reason, not to comply the judgment and order during mere pendency of the appeal in the absence of any stay order passed by the appellate Court. The order can very well be complied within reasonable time, which, in my opinion, may be a couple of months, but in no case can, beyond the time fixed by the Court for its compliance, which shall be subject to final result in the appeal. 29. The transfer of officers can also be no ground to defeat its implementation. It may be true that the officer, who posted at the relevant time when the judgment/order is passed would also be equally reasonable for non-compliance of the judgment/order, but if the violation still continues the officer posted at the time when the contempt matter is heard, will be equally responsible and he cannot be absolved of the contemptuous act. 30. As regards the plea that the process takes time or that the fund is not available, I fail to appreciate this plea. There cannot be any such process, which would lead to non-compliance of the judgment/order for months and in some cases even years. With my experience since I have been hearing contempt matters, I can say that where there is will a way is found out. Whenever, I take strong exception to such a plea being taken, almost after a year, the notification/cheques have been produced on the very next day. This is sufficient to demonstrate that unless a sword is made to hang over the head of the concerned officer, he does not bother for the compliance. I have found that even after disposal of L. P. A. , which is the usual plea taken in almost all contempt matters, no action is taken for months until the contempt matter is taken up for hearing by this Court. This is really shocking and a very sad state of affairs prevailing in the authorities, whether it is stated or its instrumentalities or in some cases even the Central Govt. and its instrumentalities. This really requires immediate check and thus, I am constrained to observe that this does not only harass the poor litigants, but also interferes with the course of justice, required to be imparted by this court in various other important matters. and its instrumentalities. This really requires immediate check and thus, I am constrained to observe that this does not only harass the poor litigants, but also interferes with the course of justice, required to be imparted by this court in various other important matters. If such action of the authorities is allowed to go un-checked, it would result in orders of Court ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. 31. The orders of the Courts are to be implemented and acted upon with promptitude. If their implementation is unduly delayed, tt would amount to showing scant responsibility to Court concerned and its judicial process, which would obviously be a serious contempt of Court, even though the person sought to be injuncted or restrained might have no intention to flout the orders of the court, for, in many cases the very object of obtaining the order of stay or restraint would be rendered nugatory and the things sought to be interfered or restrained by the Court might be accomplished or completed, such as, in the case of stay, demolition, etc. Moreover, considerable delay in carrying out order of a court after notice, without adequate explanation for laches would, by itself, constitute serious contempt, inasmuch as it tends to undermine the prestige and authority of Court of law efficacy of its judicial process. A person, who has obtained an order in his favour from a court is entitled to instant relief and its delayed implementation would discredit the administration of justice. A reference may be made to the decisions reported in A. I. R.1952 Cal.397. A. I. R.1960 S. C.190, AI. R.1961 s. C.1367 and A. I. R.1962 S. C.1089 (Oswald "contempt of Court", halsbarys "laws of England", Third edition, Vol.8, page 7, Para 8 ). 32. Thus, in my opinion, a time has come when the Court should not grant any latitude to such persons, who treat the contempt jurisdiction as jurisdiction of the executing courts. In fact, strong exceptions should be taken for such delayed actions and heavy costs may be imposed to be realised from the pocket of the concerned contemnor, besides holding them guilty and imposing appropriate punishment as considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 33. In fact, strong exceptions should be taken for such delayed actions and heavy costs may be imposed to be realised from the pocket of the concerned contemnor, besides holding them guilty and imposing appropriate punishment as considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 33. Considering the above mentioned facts, I wish to lay down certain guidelines for strict compliance of the judgment/order/direction of this Court by the concerned authorities including the authority/authorities in the state or in the Central Government or any of the instrumentalities under them, except in cases of post. . . . . dues, for which general guidelines have been laid down by this court: (i) The concerned authorities must comply the judgment/order/direction given by this Court within two months of its receipt/communication where no time-limit is fixed for the same by the courts. In case the concerned authorities find any difficulty in complying with the judgment/order/direction of this Court within the aforesaid time, then they must file a petition for extension of time in that matter before the expiry of the aforesaid time explaining the difficulties. (ii) Where time is fixed for the compliance in the judgement/order/direction of this Court, it must be complied within that time and in case there is some plausible difficulties, then the concerned authority must file a petition in that matter itself explaining the difficulties praying for extension of time, atleast one week before expiry of the time. In the said petition the authority must also furnish the details of the actions taken by him/them so far to comply the judgment/order/direction, (iii) In case the concerned authority does not act within the aforesaid time, the party alleging non-compliance should first move the head of the Department personally, under whom the concerned authority is posted/functioning, by filing representation giving details and alleging non-compliance. Such a representation shall be filed only after the period of two months or after the expiry of the period/time fixed by the Court in the judgment/order/direction for compliance; (iv) On filing of such a representation the concerned Head of the department shall take appropriate action against the concerned authority under him in appropriate cases even by immediately placing him under suspension for non-compliance of the order within a fortnight of the filing of the representation before him. In case, where certain actions had to be taken by other Department/authority also, then the Head of the department shall approach the other departmental Heads/authorities for compliance of the order of this Court and even thereafter he finds any difficulty, then he should apprise the entire facts to the highest authority/in the case of Departments of the state, to the Chief Secretary. In case where the approval of Council of Ministers or of the Chief Minister is required, the concerned officer of the Head of the Department shall place the matter before them by giving details that there is a judgment/order of this court, which is required to be complied within specified time; (v) If the party/parties find that still the order of this Court is not complied within the afore-mentioned time, he may file MJC. application for initiation of contempt proceeding against the concerned authorities including the concerned Head/heads of the department; (vi) In regard to the contempt matters pending in this Court the compliance must be made within two weeks unless otherwise directed in particular case, and the same should be brought to the notice of the Court by filing show cause and mentioning before this Court that the order has been complied. In the case of interim order, passed by this Court, the same should be implemented forthwith. 34. It is made clear that non-compliance of the aforementioned peremptory directions will itself constitute contempt and this Court will take serious view and may also impose appropriate punishment for the same, besides for non-compliance of the judgment/order/direction in the main matter, the violation of which the party/parties may be complaining. 35. Let an extract of the aforesaid general direction be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of bihar for its communication to all its authorities in the State and its instrumentalities and a copy to the Ministry of Law of Government of India for its circulation to all its concerned departments and authorities as well as a copy to the learned Advocate-General, Bihar, Patna. 36. 36. In the instant case, the petitioners, who are low-paid employees, promptly went to attend the training from 1st July, 1996 pursuant to the representation made before this court, but were not allowed to join, as on 29th June, 1996 a fax message was sent, about which no communication was sent to the petitioners either through a letter or by issuing notice in the newspaper. The plea taken that all the 34 Dalpatis including the petitioners were informed at the first instance is not acceptable at all. I find it to be strange as to how the Incharge Assistant knew that the said Dalpatis were leaving by a particular bus for Ranchi. I have already mentioned above tnat the note of the incharge Assistant, on which reliance has been placed in support of the above fact is of 8th July, 19%, i. e. after this contempt matter was heard on 5th July, 19%. On 5th July, 1996 this Court directed the opposite party No.2 to explain his conduct by 8th July, 19%. On 8th July, 19% a show cause was filed on behalf of O. P. No.2, in which no such statement was made. However, this court enquired from O. P. No.2, who was present in Court as to whether the said fax message was ever issued or brought to the notice of the petitioners before they reported themselves for training at ranchi. Only thereafter, in the second show cause, which was filed on 16th july, 19%, the aforementioned note of the Incharge Assistant as well as the alleged letter dated 9-6-1996 of the second Instructor have been brought on the record to show that all the 34 Dalpatis were apprised of the Fax message by them. 37. I have already indicated that the letter of the second Instructor is purported to have been written on 9-6-1996, which refers to the Fax message issued on 29th June, 1994, and the alleged information given to Dalpatis at sasaram Bus Stand on 30th June, 1994, which is not possible, as on 9-6-19% neither the Fax message had come in existence, nor the alleged fact regarding presence of Dalpatis at Sasaram Bus stand could be there. This document, which is photostat copy of the original annexed as Annexure-D to the supplementary show cause, on the face of it, is a document fabricated only for the purpose of defending the present contempt petition. 38. This document, which is photostat copy of the original annexed as Annexure-D to the supplementary show cause, on the face of it, is a document fabricated only for the purpose of defending the present contempt petition. 38. Even the next date was filed only after the second contempt petition was fixed and the learned Additional advocate-General had personally contacted O. P. No.2. 39. The aforementioned facts leave no room for doubt that O. P. No.2 acted in utter and intentional disregard of the orders of this Court considering himself to be above this Court, as is also evident from the fact that if he had respect for the orders passed by this Court and had any intention to comply the same, he had sufficient time to take immediate steps for arranging for the training from 1st July, 1996, as was informed to this court even after the sanction was accorded by the Finance Department. But instead of complying the same, he was taken all kinds of false plea in paragraph 10 of his suplementary show cause in his defence including the fact that the order dated 20-5-96 was produced before him by the petitioners along with the representation dated 2-7-1996 for the first time, when in fact, even prior to that he had issued the Fax message on 29-6-1996 (Annexure-D) to his show cause defering the date of training from 1st July, 1996 to a date to be notified later. The aforesaid actions of O. P. No.2 have led to unnecessary harassment to the 34 Dalpatis including the petitioners, who are low-paid employees, despite the order of this court by incuring expenses over travelling to Ranchi and back, besides lodging at Ranchi from 1st July, 1996 to 11th july, 19% from their own pocket when they were entitled for the same from the government. 40. In view of the aforementioned evidence, I hold that the O. P. No.2 has wilfully disobeyed the order of this court and his conduct is such, which substantially interferes with the administration of justice. However, having regard to the fact that now training is to commence from 22nd July, 19% as also the fact that the contemnor O. P. No.2 has tendered apology, though coupled with attempt to justify the disobedience jurisdiction, might minimise the gravity of the offence committed by him, but he cannot be fully absolved of the guilt. 41. However, having regard to the fact that now training is to commence from 22nd July, 19% as also the fact that the contemnor O. P. No.2 has tendered apology, though coupled with attempt to justify the disobedience jurisdiction, might minimise the gravity of the offence committed by him, but he cannot be fully absolved of the guilt. 41. Accordingly, I hold O. P. No.2 to the guilty of contempt of this Court and impose upon him a fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to be paid from his own pocket, out of which Rs.2500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) shall be deposited in this court and Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) shall be paid to the petitioners within a week from today, failing which the O. P. No.2 shall have to serve a sentence of one weeks simple imprisonment. The contemnor o. P. No.2 shall file receipt in this Court in token of the compliance of the aforementioned order imposing the fine within a week, failing which this matter shall be posted for orders when the contemnor-O. P. No.2 shall appear in person for further action to be taken against him. In the result, this petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.