ORDER Gohil, J. -- 1. This contempt petition has been registered under the direction of the Court against the respondent A.K. Shivhare, who was earlier posted as Collector, Datia. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Prayag Singh was working as Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Hetampura. There were some complaints against him for misuse of power and funds of Gram Panchayat, taking bribe and committing serious financial irregularities. Therefore, on 7.10.2006 a resolution was passed by the whole body of Gram Panchayat that his continuation on the post of Secretary is not in the interest of Panchayat. The complaints were also enquired by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Seondha, but due to connivance between the officers, CMO Janpad Panchayat and Panchayat Secretary no action was taken against him and Collector was also not removing him from the post of Panchayat Secretary. Therefore, it was resolved by Gram Panchayat that his services be dismissed. Thereafter, Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch also made complaints to the Collector Datia that Prayag Singh is trying to involve them in criminal cases and threatening them. In the enquiry conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Seondha, Panchayat Secretary was found guilty of various charges but no action was taken against him except minor action of suspending his power as Panchayat Secretary on 30.12.1996. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat filed writ petition in the High Court on 21.12.2006, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 6597/ 06. In the petition a prayer was made that the resolution of the Panchayat be carried out and action be taken against respondent No.5, against whom serious allegations of financial irregularities have been made. By order dated 10.1.2007 Writ Petition No. 6597/06 was disposed of and a direction was given to the Collector to look into the matter and take appropriate action within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. 3. The Collector, instead of taking action against the aforesaid Panchayat Secretary and complying the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the writ Court, deliberately ignored the aforesaid order of the Court as well as the prayer of Gram Panchayat, and intentionally passed another order dated 5.2.2007, by which restored his power of the Panchayat Secretary, as the Secretary was in connivance with the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat and Collector was also helping the erring officer. Against the order passed by the Collector, Datia on 5.2.2007 restoring the powers of Prayag Singh as Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat filed another Writ Petition No. 1071/07, but the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.3.2007 to avail remedy of appeal as against the aforesaid order dated 5.2.2007 the Gram Panchayat was having alternative remedy of filing appeal under M.P. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. While passing the order dated 21.3.2007 the High Court has mentioned that Clause I of Panchayat Karmi Scheme dated 12.1.1995 has not been complied with and the order of the Court dated 10.1.2007 has also not been complied with but dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative statutory remedy. Against which Writ Appeal No. 273/07 was filed. 4. While hearing Writ Appeal No. 273/07 it was argued by the learned Government Advocate that after the order dated 5.2.2007 an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer against the aforesaid Secretary on 28.8.2007 in which it was found that the said Secretary has committed various financial irregularities and action is being taken against him. Even after the aforesaid enquiry the said Secretary was not removed from the post of Secretary and Collector was regularly protecting such an officer. The conduct of the Collector was prejudicial to the interest of the Panchayat. Therefore, on 29.11.2007 the Division Bench of this Court held that the conduct of the Collector was contrary to the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by writ Court in Writ Petition No. 6597/06 and Collector has violated the orders, thus, a direction was given to register a suo motu contempt petition against the Collector, Datia. 5. In the reply the contemner has admitted that on 11.9.2006 a complaint was sent by Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch against Prayag Singh, that he is threatening the people living in the village. This complaint was enquired by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Seondha, and report was submitted on 17.10.2006. In this report, recommendation was made that the Secretary may be sent to some other Panchayat and action be also taken against Sarpanch under section 40 of the Panchayat Raj, Adhiniyam. It was further admitted by the Collector that on the basis of the aforesaid report dated 30.12.2006 powers of Panchayat Secretary were withdrawn. He has admitted that he passed three orders on 5.2.2007 after the order dated 10.1.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 6597/06. It was further admitted by the Collector that on the basis of the aforesaid report dated 30.12.2006 powers of Panchayat Secretary were withdrawn. He has admitted that he passed three orders on 5.2.2007 after the order dated 10.1.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 6597/06. In one order the direction was given that whole matter should be considered afresh judicially and another order was passed to restore his powers as Secretary and by third order direction was given to Panchayat to take action. But this reply is factually incorrect in the light of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 7.10.2006. 6. It was argued that in the order dated 21.3.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 1071/07 the order dated 5.2.2007 was not considered as violative of the order dated 10.1.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 6597/06. In fact this stand of the Collector is totally misconceived. He is trying to suppress the material fact. The learned Single Judge has mentioned that 'The respondent NO.2-Collector instead of approving the recommendation for removal of Panchayat Secretary permitted him to work as Panchayat Secretary by Annexure P- 3, which is contrary to the order passed by this Court on 10.1.2007" and after mentioning the fact the Court was of the view that the order dated 5.2.2007 is appellable and therefore the writ petition was dismissed. The Collector, Datia was party in the aforesaid petition. He was represented by Lawyer for the respondent -State, and even upto 21.3.2007, the order dated 10.1.2007 was not complied with nor the order dated 5.2.2007 was withdrawn. The Collector has withdrawn the powers of Prayag Singh only on 18.12.2007 after knowing the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 273/07. In the reply, Collector has made an attempt to fasten the responsibility either on Deputy Director Panchayat or on the Clerk that the note sheet was prepared by the Clerk against whom a show cause notice has been issued for appropriate action. 7. The Collector of a district is a very responsible Government officer. He is required to execute the various Government schemes. He is also prescribed authority in the matter of administration of Gram Panchayat, under the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam. He is required to act and to protect the interest of Gram Panchayat. 7. The Collector of a district is a very responsible Government officer. He is required to execute the various Government schemes. He is also prescribed authority in the matter of administration of Gram Panchayat, under the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam. He is required to act and to protect the interest of Gram Panchayat. It is his duty to help and provide full protection and assistance to the Gram Panchayat an also to elected Panch and Sarpanch with a view to strengthen the democratic set up of the Panchayati Raj System. When any resolution or recommendation or complaint is received against any Panchayat karmi or Secretary particularly from the Gram Panchayat, it is his duty to take immediate action against the erring Panchayat karmi or Secretary in accordance with law as well as guidelines issued by the State Government. It should be remembered that Constitution has provided supremacy to the Gram Panchayats in the matter of functioning of Gram Panchayat which is an elected body and the officers are appointed to assist in the administration of their functioning. Unfortunately, in this case Panchayat has made allegation that Janpad Panchayat and other officers including the Collector were helping Prayag Singh, against whom serious allegations were made. In reply Collector has tried to justify his action and has shifted his responsibility on a poor clerk that the note sheet was not properly prepared and presented by a clerk. The Collector himself is a responsible officer and it is his duty to study the High Court's orders and consider the pros and cons of the order and not to leave it on the clerk. He is not required to act on the advise or note sheet put up by the clerk but he should take independent decision. In this case he has not done so nor cared to obey the order of the High Court in its true spirit. 8. When the Collector was aware that the Panchayat Secretary is not working properly and is involved in defalcation and financial irregularities as well as in misappropriating the funds of the Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat has also passed resolution to remove him, then in that case it was his duty to take immediate action in the matter. On the contrary, he favoured him, tried to save him and restored his powers despite the orders passed by the High Court. On the contrary, he favoured him, tried to save him and restored his powers despite the orders passed by the High Court. Against such a favourable action of the Collector, the Gram Panchayat was compelled to approach the High Court twice in the matter to seek relief. We feel that this is high time when Constitutional mandate of autonomy to Panchayati Raj System should be followed by the Collectors and other authorities and Panchayat should not be compelled to approach the Court again and again to see that their decisions and resolutions are carried out. The Collector cannot be allowed to act against the interest of Panchayat. It is expected from Collectors that they will provide full assistance and cooperation to the elected officers of the Panchayat in discharging their duties, rather than to act in derogation, contrary to their interest. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in this case Collector has deliberately ignored the enquiry report as well as the allegation against Panchayat Secretary, resolution of Gram Panchayat and has deliberately and illegally restored his power as Panchayat Secretary with a view to provide him illegal and undue benefits of the post of Panchayat Secretary, contrary to the directions of the High Court. The conduct of the Collector cannot be said to be legal or justified. It is a case of deliberate violation of the directions issued by this High Court. Therefore, the contemnor is held guilty of contempt of Court and liable to be punished for contempt. So far as the question of tendering apology is concerned, firstly, he has tried to justify his action and only thereafter tendered apology which cannot be said to be bonafide, therefore, cannot be accepted. 9. In the view of the aforesaid discussion and under the fact and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case in which contemnor is liable to be punished with exemplary punishment but looking to his long service career, we restrain ourselves to pass order of jail sentence but we impose a moderate sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on him, which shall be deposited by him personally with an appropriate disciplinary action against him by the Government. 10. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) on him, which shall be deposited by him personally with an appropriate disciplinary action against him by the Government. 10. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for taking appropriate disciplinary action against the contemner and it is directed that the Government shall be careful in future in the matter of his posting and he shall not be posted on any important post or assignment.