B.U. Wahane, J.
1. This Court issued rule on 13th January, 1995 to the respondents/contemnors calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as they wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned School Tribunal dated 3-2-1994.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Instructor by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Sujata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Dhanora Kd., Tahsil Mangrulpir, district Akola with effect from 1-7-1987. His services being terminated on 4-7-1992, he preferred an appeal No. 98 of 1992-A before the School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad division, Aurangabad. The appeal was decided on merit. The learned School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner and passed the following order on 3-2-1994.
'The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned oral termination dated 4-7-1992 done by the respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellant in the said post of Asstt. Teacher/P.T.I. with continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment with consequential benefits and full backwages within 40 days.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 are further directed to pay the arrears of pay and allowances of the appellant from the date of termination, till his reinstatement including arrears accrued due to grant of continuity of service within a reasonable period of three months, which is admissible to the salary grants, failing which an equal amount be deducted from the grant-due and payable or that would be due and payable in future to the respondent management and be paid to the appellant direct.
5. Copy of this order should be sent to the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Akola for information and necessary action.
Dt. 3-2-1994 Sd/-
(P.G. Hiremath)
Aurangabad Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Aurangabad.'
The petitioner thereafter approached contemners Nos. 1 and 2, who are the Secretary and the Headmaster of the school respectively to join his services in pursuance of the order passed by the learned School Tribunal, on 3 occasions i.e. 10th and 14th February, 1994 as also on 16th, March, 1994. The respondents 1 and 2 did not allow him to resume his duty. Besides this, he sent representation dated 13th June, 1994 to the Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Akola. Again a communication dated 23-9-1994/20-10-1994 was sent to the respondents 1 and 2. Neither the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 allowed the petitioner/applicant to resume his duty nor they have sent any communication to him.
3. It needs to be mentioned that after the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred Writ Petition No. 60 of 1994 on 7th March, 1994. On 11-3-1994 the notice before admission was issued and made returnable on 17-3-1994 with rule on stay. On 27th April, 1994 the reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner.
It is clear from the statement made by Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel for the petitioner that no stay was granted to the order of the School Tribunal. After 27-4-1994, it appears that no attempt was also made by the respondents 1 and 2 for grant of stay to the effect and operation of the order passed by the learned School Tribunal.
4. Inspite of the repeated requests and persuasion in person as well as submitting the representations, the petitioner was not being allowed to join the services as also no arrears being paid to the petitioner, he filed the present contempt petition on 25th October, 1994. Admittedly, at the time of first appearance i.e. 31st January, 1995, the respondents 1 and 2 undertook to reinstate the petitioner and expressed the desire to pay the back-wages. One important aspect to be noted at this stage is that before receipt of notice of this Court in the instant contempt matter, on behalf of the contemners 1 and 2 the counsel sent a letter to the petitioner on 20-12-1994 apprising him that they will abide by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 660 of 1994. This attitude indicates that the contemners 1 and 2 had not considered the School Tribunal as a Court and shown scant regard.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit on record dated 16th February, 1995 wherein they have stated that they allowed the petitioner No. 1 to resume his duty from 1st February, 1995. So also they have paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by cheque towards arrears of salary. Another cheque also has been issued payable on 10th May, 1995 in the sum of Rs. 71,380/- so as to cover the entire back-salary. No doubt petitioner has expressed his satisfaction. There is thus no grievance against contemners.
6. Once this Court is seized of the matter with regard to contempt and the Rule is issued, it must be made clear for all purposes that desire of the private party to continue or not to continue such proceedings is insignificant and is totally irrelevant. Purpose of proceedings in contempt is mainly to uphold the dignity of the Court and instil confidence in the mind of the people about the institutional integrity and honour of the Judge. That the provisions of the Act would be rendered nugatory and object would stand defeated and frustrated, if private negotiations of such settlements and even such withdrawals of petitioners are permitted. There exists clearly high principle of public policy behind the institution of such proceedings involving public interest in the matters of administration of justice.
From these circumstances Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently submitted that it was not the intention or the desire of the respondent No. 2 to flout or disobey the order passed by the learned School Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, on the first day itself, they have undertaken to reinstate the petitioner and to pay back-salary. I do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
7. Since 27-4-1994 i.e. the day when the petitioner filed his reply in Writ Petition No. 660 of 1994, no attempt whatsoever has been made either to bring the case on board and pursue for grant of stay. Similarly, if the contemners had intention to reinstate and pay the arrears to petitioner, definitely they would have responded to the repeated communications made by the petitioner. Reasons assigned for not reinstating the petitioner, making payment and not responding to the communications, the contemners 1 and 2 took the order of School Tribunal very casually. Besides, casualness, contemners 1 and 2 sent communication to the petitioner that they will follow the order of High Court, means, contemners 1 and 2 declared not to implement the order passed by the learned School Tribunal. Action was not bona fide, but intended to harass and oppress the petitioner, breach of duties with oblique motive to deprive petitioner from his legal rights and dues causing mental and monetary loss. Defiance of order shows callous attitude or disregard for the courts. It is a deliberate or reckless contempt of Court.
8. The orders passed by the courts are only to obey and not to flout. It is the duty of each and every person who is a party in a proceeding before a Court to comply with the order of the Court and if he has any grievance against the order, he is free to file appeal or to make application before that Court for modification or discharge of the same, but unless that order is not stayed, varied or modified, the party concerned has no justification to flout the order of the Court.
9. No doubt, the respondents 1 and 2 have tendered unconditional apology but considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the same. While dealing with contempt matters, it is found, the management of educational institutions takes or treats the orders of Court in a very casual manner or deals the orders callously till the contempt petitions are filed. It needs mention that though at the earliest or at the beginning of the hearing tendered apology, would not be sufficient to drop the proceedings. It must be remembered that the apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt under all circumstances nor can it be allowed to operate as a universal penance. Unconditional apology would be a circumstance for showing leniency in quantum of punishment.
10. In the result, I am of the opinion that respondents 1 and 2 have committed the Contempt of Court by flouting or disobeying the order of the School Tribunal passed on 3rd February, 1994. However, taking into account the circumstances, I do not think that it will be correct to close the matter by accepting the apology of the contemners 1 and 2. In addition to that apology, there must be sentence. I do not intend to be too harsh. At the same time, I do not propose to be too lenient. I think that the interest of justice would be met if the contemners 1 and 2 each is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.
11. The contemners 1 and 2 are sentenced, each to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Fine be paid within 2 weeks from today, failing which, both the contemners will have to undergo a simple imprisonment for 15 days. Rule, is made absolute in the above terms.