JUDGMENT : RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. 1. Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Indra Raj Singh, for Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Sudeep Harkauli, for Bhaskar Mishra, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, for Ranjeet Singh. 2. Ajay Kumar Singh has filed Contempt Appeal No. 4 of 2018 and Bhaskar Mishra has filed Contempt Appeal No. 3 of 2018, from the judgment and order of punishment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, dated 14.03.2018, in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 941 of 2017, Dr. Ranjeet Singh vs. Shri Bhaskar Mishra and 2 others. 3. Dr. Ranjeet Singh (opposite-party-1) was posted as the Principal of Panchsheel Inter College, Fatehganj, Jaunpur, a “Private Aided Institution”. In pursuance of the resolution of Committee of Management of the College, Ajay Kumar Singh (the appellant), in the capacity of the manager, vide letter dated 05.10.2016, suspended Dr. Ranjeet Singh, in exercise of powers under Section 16-G of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and initiated disciplinary proceeding and also issued a charge sheet. Dr. Ranjeet Singh submitted his reply dated 17.10.2016, against the suspension order/charge sheet. Committee of Management was not satisfied with the reply of Dr. Ranjeet Singh. Ajay Kumar Singh, therefore, forwarded the papers relating to disciplinary proceedings to District Inspector of School, Jaunpur, on 17.10.2016, for approval of suspension order, as required under Section 16-G (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 4. Dr. Ranjeet Singh filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-A No. 971 of 2017) before this Court, challenging his suspension order dated 05.10.2016. The writ petition came up for hearing at admission stage before the Court on 10.01.2017. This Court found that time two months period from the date of suspension order has expired and it has not been approved by District Inspector of Schools as such suspension order had become unenforceable under Section 16-G (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. This Court, without calling for a counter affidavit, disposed of the writ petition by order dated 10.01.2017, with following directions:- "After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances aforesaid, the suspension order passed against the petitioner stands eclipsed as on date. The petitioner thus becomes entitled for reinstatement with full salary. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner thus becomes entitled for reinstatement with full salary. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to resume his duties as Principal of the institution and full salary shall be paid to him. So far as the matter relating to grant of approval to the suspension of the petitioner, according to both the parties, the same is pending consideration before the District Inspector of Schools. It is desirable that on the said aspect of the matter, decision be taken by the second respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 5. Dr. Ranjeet Singh served copy of the order dated 10.01.2017 along with an application for its compliance, in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 13.01.2017. He allegedly tried to serve the copy of the order dated 10.01.2017 upon Ajay Kumar Singh (the manager) but he had refused to receive it, therefore, the copy of the order was sent to him through registered post on 20.01.2017. Dr. Ranjeet Singh made a reminder dated 13.02.2017 (received in the office on 14.02.2017) to District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and its copy was also sent to the manager through registered post on 14.02.2017. Ajay Kumar Singh is alleging that he had wrote a letter dated 16.01.2017 to Dr. Ranjeet Singh, through registered post to join on the post of the Principal of the college, on any working day. 6. Dr. Ranjeet Singh filed Contempt application (Civil) No. 941 of 2017 before this Court on 25.02.2017, stating that the order dated 10.01.2017 was not complied with. The contempt application was heard on 28.02.2017, on which notices were issued to opposite-parties, giving one more opportunity to them to comply with the order dated 10.01.2017, within one month. 7. According to Sri Bhaskar Mishra, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, after receiving the order of suspension, he issued to notices to the parties concerned, fixing 19.11.2016 for hearing but the Manager did not appear on that day as such the matter could not be heard. After order of this Court, he issued fresh notice on 02.02.2017 for hearing and heard the parties on 08.02.2017. He, by order dated 06.03.2017, held that as five months had expired after suspension order and it was not approved as such Dr. After order of this Court, he issued fresh notice on 02.02.2017 for hearing and heard the parties on 08.02.2017. He, by order dated 06.03.2017, held that as five months had expired after suspension order and it was not approved as such Dr. Ranjeet Singh was entitled for full salary of these period. But inquiry against Dr. Ranjeet Singh was pending before Committee of Management, which was liable to be concluded. On these findings, he directed the Committee of Management to pay full salary of Dr. Ranjeet Singh, which was due on that day and to conclude the inquiry against him. He further observed that till conclusion of inquiry, Committee of Management would be free to take work of the Principal from Dr. Ranjeet Singh or not. 8. Committee of Management, through letter dated 21.03.2017, forwarded the bills, relating to payment of salary of Dr. Ranjeet Singh up to February, 2017, which was passed by Finance and Account Officer, posted in the office of District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on 22.03.2017 and the amount of salary was transferred in the bank account of Dr. Ranjeet Singh. The contempt application came for hearing before the Court on 10.04.2017, on that day the Court was prima-facie of the view that this Court vide order dated 10.01.2017 had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his duties as the Principal of the Institution as such in spite of the contrary order dated 06.03.2017, he was entitled to resume his duties but he was not permitted to resume his duties. Ajay Kumar Singh (the manager) was therefore summoned for framing charges, fixing 17.04.2017. Then Dr. Ranjeet Singh was given charge of the post of Principal on 14.04.2017. Dr. Ranjeet Singh filed Rejoinder Affidavit (sworn on 16.04.2017) in Contempt Application, stating that the manager merely directed him to sign the attendance register but he was not permitted to enter the office and chamber of the Principal and District Inspector of School has not canceled the order of verification of signatures of the Acting Principal. This Court vide order dated 18.04.2017, framed charge against Ajay Kumar Singh. 9. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur was intimated that Dr. This Court vide order dated 18.04.2017, framed charge against Ajay Kumar Singh. 9. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur was intimated that Dr. Ranjeet Singh has joined the college on the post of Principal as such he, by order dated 28.04.2017, recalled the order attesting the signatures of Rajesh Kumar Singh, Acting Principal and by order dated 01.06.2017, attested the signatures of Dr. Ranjeet Singh, as the Principal of the college. This Court reserved the order after hearing the parties, on 11.05.2017. By the order dated 28.06.2017, the Court found that till 28.04.2017, the order attesting the signatures of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as the Acting Principal was not recalled as such the charge for contempt was liable to be framed against District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. Charge against Sri Bhaskar Mishra was framed on 01.11.2017. This Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 13.04.2018, held that Sri Bhaskar Mishra, in his order dated 06.03.2017, circumvented the order of this Court dated 10.01.2017, by observing that it was open for Committee of Management to take work of the Principal from Dr. Ranjeet Singh or not and thus committed contempt of Court. Ajay Kumar Singh (the manager) has also committed contempt, in not permitting Dr. Ranjeet Singh, to resume his duties as the Principal. Unconditional apology tendered by them was not liable to be accepted. He sentenced Sri Bhaskar Mishra with 15 days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-and Ajay Kumar Singh with one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. Hence these appeals have been filed. 10. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 16-G (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that no order of suspension shall, unless approved in writing by the Inspector, remain in force more than sixty days from the date of such order and the order of the Inspector shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. Full Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Doria and others, 1995 (1) ESC 552 (FB) (All) has held that although Section 16-G (7) required for approval of suspension order by the Inspector within sixty days of its passing but unapproved order shall not lapse after sixty days. It merely cease to operate after sixty days. District Inspector of Schools, Doria and others, 1995 (1) ESC 552 (FB) (All) has held that although Section 16-G (7) required for approval of suspension order by the Inspector within sixty days of its passing but unapproved order shall not lapse after sixty days. It merely cease to operate after sixty days. Inspector has jurisdiction to approve it, even after sixty days and after such approval it would come into force immediately on such approval. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court in the order dated 10.01.2017, directed District Inspector of School to take decision, in the matter relating to approval of suspension, pending before him. 11. The contempt Court vide order dated 28.02.2017, gave one more opportunity to the appellants to comply with the order dated 10.01.2017, within one month. Thereafter, District Inspector of Schools, by order dated 06.03.2017, held that as five months had expired after suspension order and it was not approved as such Dr. Ranjeet Singh was entitled for full salary of these periods. But inquiry against Dr. Ranjeet Singh was pending before Committee of Management, which was liable to be concluded. On these findings, he directed the Committee of Management to pay full salary of Dr. Ranjeet Singh, which was due on that day and to conclude the inquiry against him. He further observed that till conclusion of inquiry, Committee of Management would be free to take work of the Principal from Dr. Ranjeet Singh or not. The order of District Inspector of Schools, dated 06.03.2017, was well within his statutory jurisdiction and was passed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.01.2017. View of Hon'ble Single Judge that while passing the order dated 06.03.2017, Sri Bhaskar Mishra has circumvented the order of this Court dated 10.01.2017, is not correct. 12. It is not denied that salary of Dr. Ranjeet Singh during his suspension period was paid on 22.03.2017, i.e. within the period extended for compliance by the Contempt Court. So far as giving charge of the post of principal was concerned, first direction of the order dated 10.01.2017, was always depended upon the result of second direction. As District Inspector of Schools, in its order dated 06.03.2017, permitted the Committee of Management would be free to take work of the Principal from Dr. So far as giving charge of the post of principal was concerned, first direction of the order dated 10.01.2017, was always depended upon the result of second direction. As District Inspector of Schools, in its order dated 06.03.2017, permitted the Committee of Management would be free to take work of the Principal from Dr. Ranjeet Singh or not as such it cannot be said that Committee of Management has committed any willful disobedience of the order dated 10.01.2017. Supreme Court in Shenoy & Co. v. CTO, (1985) 2 SCC 512 , has held that if a writ of mandamus was predicated upon the view that the High Court took that the 1979 Act was constitutionally invalid. Consequently the Court directed the authorities under the said Act to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Act qua the petitioners. The Act was subsequently declared constitutionally valid by this Court. The Act, therefore, was under an eclipse, for a short duration; but with the declaration of the law by this Court, the temporary shadow cast on it by the mandamus disappeared and the Act revived with its full vigour, the constitutional invalidity held by the High Court having been removed by the judgment of this Court. If the law so declared invalid is held constitutionally valid, effective and binding by the Supreme Court, the mandamus forbearing the authorities from enforcing its provisions would become ineffective and the authorities cannot be compelled to perform a negative duty. 13. Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204 , has held that the contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “willful”. The word “willful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Willful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Willful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Willful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.” It is well-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. 14. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that the order of Hon'ble Single Judge passed in the contempt application suffers from illegality. 15. In the result, both the contempt appeals succeed and are allowed. The order of punishment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, dated 14.03.2018, in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 941 of 2017, (Dr. Ranjeet Singh vs. Shri Bhaskar Mishra and 2 others), is hereby set aside.