M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt proceeding has been instituted suo motu by the court at the instance of the learned Advocate general. The respondent was a litigant in a proceeding before our brother farooq, j. , and certain things took place in the court room on the basis of which the learned judge had passed an Order referring the matter to the hontble the chief Justice because he found that the respondent was not only adopting tactics which were tantamount to sabotaging the proceeding but that the generality of the actions indicated that the course of the judicial proceeding was being deliberately obstructed. The matter got considerably aggravated because the Hon'ble the chief Justice found that the respondent had filed a written application to him in which, he had listed certain grievances with regard to the litigation but he basically cast serious aspersions against the judiciary by alleging that his opposite party who was the landlord had virtually taken care of the judges, this was a serious omnibus accusation that would virtually undermine the confidence of society in the institution and it was essentially on these grounds that the learned advocates general instituted contempt action. ( 2 ) THE respondent had indicated several facts in his defenc eoriginally and he contended that he was worried and upset by the fact that the landlord was an influential person who is supposed to have stated that he is capable of taking care of persons in authority and he contended that in this background, when applications were made for expedited hearing of the proceeding that he was genuinely worried and that was the reason why he had applied to the Hon'ble the chief Justice for listing the matter before some other court under normal circumstances. The matter was heard for some time and we did express our opinion that this is a case in which the reference has been made by a sitting judge of the High Court himself and that since it is a proceeding in which the contempt is in the face of the court, that the elaborate procedure prescribed under the rules would not be applicable. We are conscious of the fact that the rules of natural Justice still require, as prescribed in the contempt of courts ACT itself, that the alleged contemnor must be made aware of precisely what the charge against him is and that he be given a full and fair opportunity of defending himself. This requirement has been fulfilled in so far as the petition filed by the learned Advocate general and the notice issued by this court have conveyed to the respondent what precisely is the charge against him and he has also had an opportunity of filing his reply which we have considered. The procedure prescribed in Section 14 of the contempt of courts ACT only requires that the party concerned be afforded the aforesaid opportunities. There is a reason for this in so far as unlike other categories of contempt, where the contempt is in the face of the court, it is about the highest form of contempt and requires to be virtually dealt with on the spot. This is absolutely essential in Order to maintain the decorum of the court, the dignity of the judges and the un-obstructed working of the administration of justice. If a party whosoever he is, is permitted to commit acts of contempt in the face of the court and if thereafter the usual procedure prescribed by the rules which is almost like a trial is required to be adopted the situation becomes grossly aggravated because of the time lag between the date when the incident took place and the period of time that elapsed before the party is punished. In the case of M. S. Sheriff and another v State of Madras and others, the Supreme Court had pointed out that it is very necessary from the point of view of criminal Justice that the guilty must be punished when the facts are fresh in the public mind. It is this principle that is embodied in Section 14 of the contempt of courts ACT which is why, the elaborate procedure does not have to be resorted to. ( 3 ) THE respondent has tendered an unconditional apology to the court in writing and Mr. It is this principle that is embodied in Section 14 of the contempt of courts ACT which is why, the elaborate procedure does not have to be resorted to. ( 3 ) THE respondent has tendered an unconditional apology to the court in writing and Mr. Acharya, learned senior counsel who appears for him submitted that the respondent has already been punished, that he was worried and he was apprehensive and that he was unable to correctly explain to the learned judge the circumstances why he did not want to go on with the matter and he has also submitted that courts have always adopted the principle of utmost magnanimity while dealing with contempt proceedings and in this background, that the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent should be accepted and the proceeding should be dropped. The learned state public prosecutor submitted that their is no element of vindictiveness or retribution involved in contempt proceedings but that the court must take into account the fall out of what happens if allegations are made against the judges and a party is allowed to walk out of the matter by subsequently tendering a mere apology. His submission is that this would almost be tantamount to encouraging misbehavior and mis-conduct because of the confidence that an unconditional written apology will always get the person out of the contempt proceedings. ( 4 ) WE have very carefully applied our mind to the submissions canvassed by Mr. Acharya and by Mr. Jadhav on behalf of the respondent as also to what has been pointed out by the other side. There are deep seated proprieties involved in situations of the present type, the first of which is the fact that under the present constitutional set up, the judiciary is the grievance redressal forum and it is necessary if the judiciary is to do its job as it should, that persons who make baseless allegations against the judges or against the institutions of which they are a part will have to be firmly dealt with. We cannot lose sight of some of the contemporary trends that are now surfacing wherein allegations some times personal some time generalised are indiscriminately made and the one reason for this is because of the leniency which has been shown. Undoubtedly, the courts have been and will continue to be magnanimous in matters of contempt but there are cases and cases. Undoubtedly, the courts have been and will continue to be magnanimous in matters of contempt but there are cases and cases. If the kind attitude of the court is misunderstood, if it is taken lightly and if as a result thereof it creates a licence to people to make contemptuous statements and indulge in contemptuous conduct, then it is very necessary that there will have to be some rethinking on the part of the courts with regard to the attitude that they have always displayed. It is in the light of these various considerations, that we are unable to accept the apology that has been tendered in this case. The incident is of some seriousness and therefore, the respondent cannot get away an apology. At the same time, we have taken special note of the age of the respondent the fact that he is a retired government officer and more importantly at this stage, that he has tendered an un-qualified unconditional apology. These are all factors which we consider to be extenuating circumstances in his favour. Having regard to this background, in our considered view, we propose to administer to him a stern warning that in the litigations which he may have to conduct, he shall ensure that he does not undermine the dignity of the courts in question impose on him a token punishment of s. i. till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 501/- he is permitted to tender the fine within a period of three weeks from today. ( 5 ) WITH these directions, the petition to stand disposed of. --- *** --- .