S. C. PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, whereby the contemner Smt. Shikha Dubey, Collector, Harda has been summoned for answering the charge of dis-obeying the order of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2105/96. This Court passed an order on 17-7-1997 in that Criminal Appeal to the effect that:"in view of the decision reported in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513, this court in exercise of its power under Section 389 (1) read with Section 482, Cr. P. C. suspends the conviction of the appellant during the pendency of this appeal". It is also not in dispute that thereafter the petitioner, who was elected as a Panch of Janpad Panchayat. Timarni submitted the certified copy of the order before the contemner. The contemner, however, passed an order dated 1-12-1998 (Annexure P17) removing the petitioner from the office of a Panch of Janpad Panchayat, Timarni. It is stated by the petitioner that in doing so, the contemner dis-obeyed the order of this Court and brought the lawful authority of this Court to utter contempt and disrepute. ( 2 ) THE reply filed on behalf of the contemner states that the contemner was of the view that the order dated 17-7 -1997, suspending the conviction of the petitioner, during the pendency of appeal did not debar her from passing an order, disqualifying the petitioner from the office of Panch of the Janpad Panchayat, Timarni and, therefore, she passed that order. ( 3 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the defence taken by the contemner is totally untenable. This Court has not only quoted the ruling, but also quoted the Section 389 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and suspended the conviction of the petitioner. The order of suspension of conviction during the pendency of appeal was passed for the purpose of staying the operation of whatever additional dis-qualifications that were attached to the conviction of the appellant/petitioner. They became inoperative from the date of order on 17-7-1997. The consequence of the order of suspension of conviction was that the petitioner could not be deemed to be dis-qualified to hold the office of Panch of Janpad Panchayat Timarni. They became inoperative from the date of order on 17-7-1997. The consequence of the order of suspension of conviction was that the petitioner could not be deemed to be dis-qualified to hold the office of Panch of Janpad Panchayat Timarni. The Collector, the contemner was, therefore, deneuded of the power to declare that the office of the petitioner became vacant on account of the fact that he incurred dis-qualification under the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam because of conviction in the criminal case against which the appeal was filed. The contemner did not try to go through the order and the case, law which has been specifically cited with a view to guide her to come to right conclusion, and claims that under some mis-apprehension of law, passed the order disqualifying the petitioner. This plea is obviously a plea of legal literacy. It appears to this Court that the contemner was neither thoughtful nor careful, in passing that order, for which she has been summoned for committing contempt of this Court. It is a matter of common sense that suspension of conviction would mean that, not only, the petitioner would be deemed to be not convicted during the pendency of the appeal but also, any consequent disqualification attached to his person upon his conviction shall become inoperative and remain in abeyance pending his appeal. Otherwise, there was no purpose of passing the order suspending conviction. Moreover, this Court had indicated in its order in that Criminal Appeal that the order staying conviction is based on the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang, (1995) 2 sec 513 (supra ). This Court also indicated the sections on which it relies for passing that order. There was little possibility of any doubt and in any case, the contemner could have obtained legal advice, if she was in doubt. The defence is, therefore, totally lame. It is ironical that a guardian of law and order is reduced to such a situation that she takes the plea of ignorance of plain, English. Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the State of M. P. , so that one may say with Hamlet: Something is rotten in the State of. . . . ( 4 ) THE contemner, however, has stated that she urged herself of the contempt. Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the State of M. P. , so that one may say with Hamlet: Something is rotten in the State of. . . . ( 4 ) THE contemner, however, has stated that she urged herself of the contempt. She states that she withdrew the order whereby she caused the contempt of Court and thereby restored the status quo ante to the passing of the order impugned dated 1-12-1998 (Annexure P/7 ). She undertook to maintain status quo until further orders in the Criminal Appeal No. 2105/96. She also offered an apology to the Court praying that her intention was not to commit any contempt or lower reputation of this Court in any manner. The claimed that she had genuinely misunderstood the nature of her power vis-a-vis the order passed by this Court. ( 5 ) LOOKING to the facts that she has been summoned before this Court for the first time and that she has withdrawn the offending order passed by her, this Court is of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to accept her apology rather than passing a sentence of conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is nevertheless duty of this Court to warn the contemner that any dis-obedience of the order passed by this Court or any other Judicial Court is not likely to be tolerated in future. She should be more circumspect while discharging her duties as an Administrative Officer. It is pointed out to her that the Courts of law, as Fountains of justice represent: the Majesty of Law, and all the officers of her rank are especially expected to respect the Majesty of Law by following are legal procedure prescribed and not by over-reaching the Courts in indirect manner. Had she been careful, she could have moved this Court for clarification/vacation of the order passed by this Court before taking any step to declare that office of the petitioner vacant. However, contrite as she is, this Court accepts her apology and discharges her after giving the above warning. ( 6 ) THE Court notices the growing tendency amongst the officers of the Government who behave like an ordinary street urchins, when faced with an order of the Court, which appears them, unacceptable for whatever reason. However, contrite as she is, this Court accepts her apology and discharges her after giving the above warning. ( 6 ) THE Court notices the growing tendency amongst the officers of the Government who behave like an ordinary street urchins, when faced with an order of the Court, which appears them, unacceptable for whatever reason. As a rule they should adopt a legal remedy against such orders. The Courts can correct their errors. If it is not possible, they must obey the orders of Court literally. There is no escape. They cannot say that, a particular order of a Court of law is unpalatable. If they disobey they violate the very rule of law, which is the foundation of their authority also. Therefore, a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and the Principal Secretary of General Administration Department. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal with a request, to circulate copies of this order widely in each district. ( 7 ) THE contempt petition is disposed of in terms of the order aforesaid in paragraph 6. Petition disposed of accordingly. .