Judgment Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2. The petitioner herein who was working as an Anganwadi worker for a considerable period without any salary, came forward with a writ petition in W.P.No.9933 of 2007, challenging the order of the first respondent in his proceedings in Che.Mu.Na.Ka.No.2317/A1/2005 dated 27.02.2007, by which one Unnamalai, the third respondent in the writ petition had been appointed as the Anganwadi worker in the place of the petitioner at Thazhvellar village. This court by an order dated 16.03.2007, granted interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to the above said appointment order appointing Unnamalai as the Anganwadi worker. However, after passing of the said order, the third respondent herein has passed an order on 19.09.2007 to the effect that the said Unnamalai should be allowed to continue in the said post of Anganwadi till further orders are obtained from the court. 3. The petitioner herein has come forward with the present contempt petition stating that despite the interim order of stay passed by this court, staying all further proceedings pursuant to the above said order of appointment, the said Unnamalai was allowed to function as Anganwadi worker and that the third respondent herein has also passed an order permitting the said Unnamalai to continue in the said post. According to the petitioner, the said acts of not only orally permitting the said Unnamalai to continue in the said post but also by passing an order in writing to the said effect clearly amount to contempt of court. 4. On the other hand, the first respondent has come forward with a counter affidavit stating that soon after the order of the High Court was received, he felt that the said Unnamalai should not be allowed to continue in the post of Anganwadi worker as all further proceedings pursuant to her appointment order was stayed by this Honble court and that necessary instructions have been issued to his subordinate officers to see that the said order was complied with in its letter and spirit. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the successor in office to the third respondent herein would state that after the Collector issued instructions, she had stopped allowing the third respondent from functioning as Anganwadi worker of the said centre. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the successor in office to the third respondent herein would state that after the Collector issued instructions, she had stopped allowing the third respondent from functioning as Anganwadi worker of the said centre. Therefore, this court is of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 herein cannot be held liable for contempt of court. Both of them deserve to be exonerated. 5. So far as the third respondent is concerned, this court comes to the conclusion that the act on her part clearly amounts to contempt of court. From her own affidavit and from the order dated 19.09.2007, it is quite clear that knowing fully well that the said order of interim stay was in force, Unnamalai was allowed to continue in the post of Anganwadi worker. Not content with allowing Unnamalai to continue in the said post even after the passing of the interim order by this court, the third respondent has also passed an order in writing on 19.09.2007 to the effect since they had chosen to prefer a miscellaneous petition for vacating of the interim stay, they could allow the said Unnamalai to continue in the post of Anganwadi worker. Without any hesitation, this court comes to the conclusion that the said act on the part of the third respondent is in utter disregard for the interim order passed by this court in M.P.No.2 of 2007 in W.P.No.9933 of 2007. Hence there wont be any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the third respondents act amounted to contempt of court. However, explaining the circumstances in which the third respondent passed the said order, the third respondent has now come forward with an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for what she had committed. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the third respondent is a lady officer and taking a lenient view of the matter, this court deems it fit to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the third respondent and refrain from imposing any punishment. 7. In the result, the respondents 1 and 2 are exonerated, as they have not committed any act of contempt. So far as the third respondent is concerned, though her act amounts to contempt of court, the unconditional apology tendered by her is accepted and the contempt petition is closed without imposing any penalty.