This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 28.2.2011 extended by order dated 7.3.2011. By the said order, it was provided that the select list dated 22.2.2011 should not be given effect to. The interim order passed was continued by order dated 7.3.2011. However, the selected candidates were appointed on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that there is willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 28.2.2011 on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh. According to the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid two orders, the sole respondent could not have issued the appointment orders. It is the further plea of the petitioners that even if the appointment orders had been issued, the same ought to have been recalled and/or kept in abeyance in view of the aforesaid interim orders. 2. In the show cause reply submitted by the sole contemner, it has been stated that the order dated 28.2.2011 was received by him on 3.3.2011 but on the other hand, the select list was implemented by issuing appointment orders on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011. 3. In paragraph 9 of the show cause reply, it has been stated that although this Court in its order dated 7.3.2011 had reiterated the earlier interim order dated 28.2.2011, there was no specific direction of the Court regarding continuance of the appointees and that the select list had already been given effect to. It has further been stated that pursuant to the said interim order, the sole contemner issued the Annexure-B order dated 22.7.2011, which reads as follows :- “Government of Assam Office of the Deputy Commissioner Dibrugarh District : Dibrugarh ORDER No. DPE.36/2010/413 Dated 22nd July 2011. In pursuance of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court Order dated 07.03.2011 in WP(C) No. 1203/2011, the appointment of Junior Assistants in this office issued vide orders No. DPE.36/2010/123 to 146 dated 25.02.2011 stand modified that the appointment will be subject to the outcome of the WP(C) No. 1203/2011 pending in the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court and also subject to any order and direction of the Hon’ble court in WP(C) 1203/2011. Sd/- ( Dr. D.K. Dwivedi ) Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh.” 4. Sd/- ( Dr. D.K. Dwivedi ) Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh.” 4. In paragraph 12 of the show cause reply, the sole contemner has stated that after coming to know about the aforesaid interim order of this Court dated 7.3.2011, he had bonafide believed that he was not required to take any further action in the mater as he in his written instruction dated 4.3.2011 had conveyed the relevant facts. 5. I have heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the sole contemner. 6. By the interim order dated 28.2.2011, it was provided that the impugned select list dated 22.2.2011 should not be given effect to. The said order was again reiterated on 7.3.2011. The said two orders still hold the field and has not been modified. There was no endeavour on the part of the stole contemner to seek any clarification in respect of the said interim orders. Everything has been done by the sole contemner of his own. The explanation furnished in paragraph 9 that although this court by order dated 7.3.2011 had reiterated the earlier interim order dated 28.2.2011 but in absence of any specific direction, the position relating to the appointment of the selected candidates could not be altered, is not at all acceptable. 7. Similarly, in paragraph 12, the statement made that the respondent had bonafide believed that he was not required to take any further action in the matter as he had already submitted the written instruction on 4.3.2011 is also not acceptable. When the Court passed the aforesaid interim orders on 28.2.2011 and 7.3.2011, the respondent was obliged to comply with the said orders. In case of any doubt, he was also obliged to seek clarification and modification of the said orders. However, he did nothing and instead issued the above quoted Annexure-B order dated 22.7.2011 to the effect that the appointments made would be subject to the further orders to be passed by this Court. Such a course of action adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, namely, Dr. K.K. Dwivedi, IAS, is in complete defiance of the orders passed by this Court. Such a course of action adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, namely, Dr. K.K. Dwivedi, IAS, is in complete defiance of the orders passed by this Court. Without getting any clarification from this Court and/or filling any application for modification of the aforesaid two orders, he on in his own could not have issued the Annexure-B order dated 22.7.2011, which is in the form of modifying the order of this Court. 8. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the sole respondent with reference to the Annexure-C letter dated 22.7.2011 annexed to the show cause reply, submits that by the said letter, the Deputy Commissioner had requested the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam to get clarification in respect of the aforesaid two interim orders. The fact of the matter is that the said letter was written on 22.7.2011 but the interim order was passed on 28.2.2011 followed by the order dated 7.3.2011. Thus, it took about 4 ½ months for the sole respondent to address the letter to the learned State Counsel for clarification of the said two orders. But at the same time and without waiting for the clarification, he issued the Annexure-B order dated 22.7.2011, which is in the nature of modifying the interim order of this Court. Further, he also did not enquire from the learned State Counsel about the outcome of his letter. 9. From the conduct of the sole respondent, there is no escape from the prima facie conclusion that he has violated the orders in complete defiance of the order of this Court. Even in case of any doubt that since the appointment letters had already been issued on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011, the interim orders passed by this Court on 28.2.2011 and 7.3.2011, had no affect then also without waiting for any clarification from this Court, he could not have issued the above quoted order dated 22.7.2011, which is in the nature of modifying the orders of this Court, which the respondent, being a responsible officer of the All India Service, could not have taken recourse to. 10. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the sole respondent in reference to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the show cause reply submits that the respondent having tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology for any unintentional defiance of the orders of this Court, the contempt proceeding against the said respondent may be dropped. 11. 10. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the sole respondent in reference to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the show cause reply submits that the respondent having tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology for any unintentional defiance of the orders of this Court, the contempt proceeding against the said respondent may be dropped. 11. I have duly considered the said un-conditional apology offered by the sole contemner. The connected writ petition has already been disposed of by judgement and order passed today dealing with the particular issues raised in the writ petition, the impugned select list in respect of which the said order was passed in the instant proceeding has been dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to agitate their grievance with specific pleadings and materials which they might receive through their sources. 12. Taking note of all the above facts and circumstances, although, the manner and method in which the sole respondent has conducted in the matter cannot be appreciated, but taking note of the un-conditional apology expressed by him in paragraph 5 of the show cause reply, this proceeding is closed with a note of caution to the respondent to be careful in future while dealing with the Court Cases. 13. Since the petitioner was forced to file this contempt petition by the aforesaid action/inaction on the part of the sole respondent, the contempt petition is closed awarding a cost of Rs. 2500.00 (Rupees two thousand five hundred) only. The amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court and the petitioners upon identification shall be entitled to withdraw the amount. _____________