ORDER : N.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for setting aside an order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 12 of the said Act. 2. It appears that Miss Snigdha Sardar, Respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) had filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing an order dated 12-10-1991 issued by the appellant as Chairman, Managing Committee, Black Diamond Public School, Bandh Bahal terminating the services of the said respondent as a teacher in the School aforesaid. That writ petition was listed before a Bench of the Orissa High Court on 4-11-1991 when the following order was passed: "Heard. Annexure 5 shall not be given effect to till 15-11-1991." 3. It may be mentioned that a copy of the aforesaid order dated 12-10-1991 had been annexed and marked as Annexure 5 to the writ petition in question. 4. It was the case of the respondent that she produced a copy of the aforesaid order of the High Court dated 4-11-1991 before the appellant informing him about the interim order passed by the High Court. But the appellant ignored the said order which amounted to contempt of court. A petition for initiating proceeding for contempt was filed in which the appellant was impleaded as Respondent 2. In the show-cause filed on behalf of the appellant, a stand was taken that the Black Diamond Public School lost its identity since 10-10-1991 because of which the services of the respondent had to be terminated with effect from 11-11-1991. It was further stated that after a decision having been taken on 10-10-1991 in respect of the transfer of the said School, the appellant had no connection whatsoever with the School in question, and as such, there was no occasion on the part of the appellant to ignore any order of the High Court. Lastly, it was stated in the said show-cause filed on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had handed over the aforesaid order of the High Court to his Personal Assistant and it was not correct that she handed over the said order to the appellant. 5. Lastly, it was stated in the said show-cause filed on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had handed over the aforesaid order of the High Court to his Personal Assistant and it was not correct that she handed over the said order to the appellant. 5. The High Court in the impugned order has pointed out that if the appellant had no connection whatsoever with the School in question since 10-10-1991, there was no occasion for the appellant to issue the order of termination dated 12-10-1991 terminating the services of the respondent. The High Court has also rejected the plea taken on behalf of the appellant that he had no knowledge of the order dated 4-11-1991. In that connection, it has been pointed out in the judgment that the appellant himself had put an endorsement on the letter of the respondent enclosing a copy of the order dated 4-11-1991 directing his PA: "Pl. speak." From that the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had full knowledge of the order dated 4-11-1991 on 8-11-1991 and he ignored the interim order of the High Court. Ultimately, the appellant was convicted under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act and sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for 7 days. 6. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the resolution dated 10-10-1991, the management of the School had been handed over to the Managing Trustees of D.A.V. School and as such, the appellant cannot be held to be guilty. However, he could not explain as to how on 12-10-1991, the impugned order of termination was issued under the signature of the appellant, the validity whereof was questioned before the High Court. As the impugned order had been passed by the appellant, the respondent was perfectly justified in communicating the interim order of the High Court passed on 4-11-1991 to the appellant. From the endorsement made by the appellant on the letter of the respondent directing his PA to speak, it is apparent that the appellant had knowledge of the order dated 4-11-1991. Under the circumstances mentioned above, it is difficult to record a finding contrary to what has been recorded by the High Court. From the endorsement made by the appellant on the letter of the respondent directing his PA to speak, it is apparent that the appellant had knowledge of the order dated 4-11-1991. Under the circumstances mentioned above, it is difficult to record a finding contrary to what has been recorded by the High Court. But for the purpose of imposing the sentence against the appellant we are inclined to take a liberal view of the matter because the appellant might be under an impression on 8-11-1991 when the order of the High Court was communicated to him that on that date, he had no connection with the School in question. In the normal course, the appellant should have directed the respondent to communicate the said order to the persons who were in charge of the management of the School for implementation. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court sentencing the appellant to civil imprisonment for a period of seven days and in lieu thereof, we impose a fine of Rs. 100. The amount of Rs. 100 should be deposited with the Registrar of the High Court of Orissa within eight weeks from today. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.