Judgment :- he Order of the Court is as follows: Petitioner has filed this contempt application to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent for the alleged violation of this Court's order in W.M.P. 11259 of 1995 in W.P. 7006 of 1995. 2. Petitioner herein was appointed in respondent's college in the year 1971 as Assistant Professor in Physical education. He had applied for leave on loss of pay from 6-3-1981 to 5-3-1983 and the same was sanctioned by the then Secretary of the college. The Director of Collegiate Education came to know that petitioner was working abroad without seeking prior permission and therefore necessary instruction was given to the management/respondent herein to take action against petitioner for going abroad without getting prior permission. Pursuant to the same respondent called for explanation from petitioner. The explanation offered by petitioner was also forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education. 3. Petitioner again applied for extension of leave and the same was not granted. Director of Collegiate Education informed respondent that extention of leave on loss of pay should not be granted and when petitioner asked for permission to rejoin college, it is informed that without permission of Director of Collegiate Education he will not be permitted to join duty. In the meanwhile, Director of Collegiate Education directed respondent to take disciplinary action against petitioner for working abroad without getting prior permission from the competent authority. Since petitioner was absenting himself for long period bona fidely believing that the post is vacant a substitute was also appointed and approval was also obtained from the authorities. Thereafter, petitioner came to this Court and filed writ petition in W.P. 18609 of 1999 that he is entitled to join duty. Learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. The matter was taken on writ appeal in W.A., 1256 of 1992, Division Bench held that petitioner is entitled to the relief. Consequently, management permitted petitioner to join duty and person who was appointed as substitute was thrown out. 4. The person who was thrown out had field a review petition in C.M.P. 44 of 1995 against the decision of Division Bench in W.A. 1256 of 1992. Division Bench set aside the earlier order in writ appeal, allowed the review application and dismissed the writ appeal filed by petitioner. 4. The person who was thrown out had field a review petition in C.M.P. 44 of 1995 against the decision of Division Bench in W.A. 1256 of 1992. Division Bench set aside the earlier order in writ appeal, allowed the review application and dismissed the writ appeal filed by petitioner. Division Bench came to the conclusion that petitioner herein had suppressed material facts and there was justification on the part of respondents in appointing substitute in the place of petitioner and the writ petition itself was field without any bona fides. It was also found that there was delay and laches on the part of petitioner. The revised judgment was dated 30-8-1995. 5. After allowing writ appeal and before revised judgment there were certain developments. 6. Consequent to the first decision in the writ appeal, petitioner was reinstated to service and within few days, he was charge sheeted and suspended. Suspension order was challenged in W.P. 4438 of 1995. Another writ petition was also filed challenging the proceedings consequent to the charge-sheet after reinstatement. That writ petition was W.P. 7006 of 1995 in which interim order was passed staying further proceedings. It is the case of petitioner that this order is still in force and violating this order, service of petitioner has been terminated and therefore, respondent is liable to be proceeded for contempt. Subsequent proceeding dated 27-4-1998 says that service of petitioner is terminated form 30-8-1995. According to petitioner, this order is illegal and void and respondent has intentionally violated the interim order of this Court. 7. Contempt application was admitted and respondent was directed to appear before this Court. Respondent also entered appearance and subsequently filed counter-affidavit. 8. According to respondent, contempt application is not maintainable. It has also suppressed material facts. If only this Court was made known about the proceedings in review application and subsequent Bench Judgment, contempt application itself would not have been entertained. It is further submitted that even now the conduct of petitioner is such that he do not deserve sympathy of Court. Petitioner himself accepted termination of service by receiving subsisting allowance and arrears of salary, which was due to him. It is further said that stay is only for further proceedings of charges and in this case, termination was ordered on the basis of direction issued by Director of Collegiate Education and they have acted only bona fide. Petitioner himself accepted termination of service by receiving subsisting allowance and arrears of salary, which was due to him. It is further said that stay is only for further proceedings of charges and in this case, termination was ordered on the basis of direction issued by Director of Collegiate Education and they have acted only bona fide. It is submitted that when writ appeal was disposed of holding that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and when appointment of substitute was also recognised and approved by authorities, it was implied that petitioner's service has already been terminated and it is on that impression impugned order was passed terminating the services of petitioner with effect from 30-8-1995. It is on that date writ appeal judgment was also pronounced. It is submitted that they have no intention to violate this Court's order and they tender unconditional apology if found that there is any violation. 9. After hearing both sides I do not think that I should initiate proceedings for contempt against respondents. 10. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent if only proceedings of review and the judgment of writ appeal was brought to the notice of this Court, I would not have issued notice in this contempt application. There is material suppression of fact in the contempt application. In a contempt application, it is for the Court to decide whether proceedings are to be initiated or not. Petitioner cannot insist that this Court should initiate proceedings even if there was violation, whether the act of respondent is bona fide could be considered by this Court while exercising their right. In this case, after perusing entire facts I feel that the act of respondent is bona fide and I do not find any merit in the contempt application. 11. The review application filed in writ appeal by the staff who was substituted in the place of petitioner, he was not party to either in writ petition or in writ appeal. His appointment was due to the reason that petitioner has abstained himself for years together and Director of Collegiate Education also permitted a substitute to be appointed. In fact, his appointment was also approved by the authorities. His appointment was due to the reason that petitioner has abstained himself for years together and Director of Collegiate Education also permitted a substitute to be appointed. In fact, his appointment was also approved by the authorities. In spite of the fact that the person was not made as party to the proceedings initiated by petitioner, Division Bench entertaining the review, held that he is an aggrieved person and entitled to canvass the correctness of the Judgment in writ appeal. After hearing entire matter over and again, Division Bench held that writ petition filed by petitioner has no merit and that the petitioner suppressed material facts and the same is also filed without any bone fides. It was also found that there were laches. It was declared that petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief. Writ petition was filed by petitioner at a time when he was refused permission to rejoin duty. If that writ petition is dismissed at the instance of subsequent incumbent what could not be inferred from that Judgment ? The only inference that could be drawn is that petitioner's place is already taken over by another person and petitioner is not entitled to join duty. That Judgment was pronounced on 30-8-1995. It was that Judgment that was taken note of by respondent while passing the order when His services have been terminated with effect from that date. When Judgment has declared that petitioner is not entitled to rejoin duty, and another person's, appointment approval has been recognised, respondent bona fidely believed that petitioner is not more in service and only for the purpose of record impugned order was passed, seems to be correct. 12. While narrating facts I said that petitioner challenged suspension order after he was reinstated pursuant to the first Judgment by Division Bench. While disposing of writ petition submission was made by counsel for petitioner himself, which read thus, "The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned suspension order. It is now represented that subsequently the petitioner was dismissed for service and the said dismissal order also has been confirmed in the appeal. Therefore, it is clear that nothing further survives in this writ petition. However, it is now submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. Therefore, it is clear that nothing further survives in this writ petition. However, it is now submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. The petitioner is entitled to such allowance in accordance with law. Therefore, if the respondent has not made such payments so far, they shall do so within a period of 6 months from today. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently W.M.P. No. 7357/95 is dismissed." Consequent to this direction, petitioner also requested respondent for payment of subsisting allowance and salary. The same was also received by petitioner subsequently. Nothing is stated about this proceeding in contempt application. It was thereafter, present writ petition was filed as W.P. No. 7006 of 1995. In fact, Division Bench in its revised Judgment had taken note of this writ petition as could be seen from last portion of paragraph 13 of the Judgment. A reading of impugned order also shows that the termination order is issued pursuant to the directions of Director of Collegiate Education and consequent holding of committee meeting which passed resolution to terminate the services of petitioner. When the revised Judgment of Division Bench declared that petitioner is not entitled to any relief and not entitled to rejoin duty and when authorities under Private Colleges (Regulation) Act also wanted to take immediate action by respondent to put an end to the services of petitioner, I do not find any lack of good faith on the part of respondent in passing the impugned order. 13. It is represented by learned counsel for petitioner that he has already challenged termination order before statutory forum and the same is pending. That submission is also an added reason not to take action in contempt proceeding against respondent. 14. What is the purpose of filing this application ? Petitioner even now continues his employment elsewhere. He refused to join duty and without permission from authorities he went to foreign country and was serving there. He had not allowed any person to be appointed in his place and at the same time he also had not done his duties to the institution. Present application is filed only on the ground of technicalities. Under such circumstances, Court should not lean in favour of initiating action on the basis of so-called violation. 15. He had not allowed any person to be appointed in his place and at the same time he also had not done his duties to the institution. Present application is filed only on the ground of technicalities. Under such circumstances, Court should not lean in favour of initiating action on the basis of so-called violation. 15. Only reason for filing this application for contempt is the interim order passed in W.P. 7006 of 1995. I feel that petitioner is misusing the interim order. He should not be allowed to do so. Interim order passed by me stands vacated. 16. The contempt application is dismissed with costs. Advocate fee Rs. 3, 000/-.