ORDER
Faizanuddin, J.
1. This is a petition for taking action against the respondent for non-compliance of order/direction dated 25-2-1988 passed by this Court in Misc. Petitions Nos. 950 and 2074 both of 1984.
2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was Executive Engineer. He amongst otters was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 26-7-1983 but as some disciplinary action against him was in contemplation, the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 18-1-1984 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner challenged his suspension in this Court in Misc. Petition No. 950 of 1984. The petitioner filed another petition in this Court being Misc. Petition No. 2074/84 for quashing the departmental proceedings on the ground of undue delay in disposal thereof. Both the aforesaid petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 25-2-1988 whereby Misc. Petition No. 950 of 1984 was allowed and the order of suspension dated 18-1-1984 was quashed. In regard to the Departmental proceedings challenged in the second petition (Misc. Petition No. 2074/84), it was directed by this Court as under: -
'It is further directed that the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner shall be disposed of within six months from the date of this order. If that is not done, the petitioner's case for further promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer shall be considered as if the disciplinary enquiry is not pending against him.'
3. The departmental proceedings could not be concluded within the period of six months as directed by this Court and, therefore, on 25-8-1988 an application was made seeking extension of three months' time for compliance of the order. This application was registered as Misc. Civil Case No. 651 of 1988. Neither the departmental proceedings could be concluded by 25-8-1988 nor any order was passed in the said Misc. Civil Case and, therefore, an application was again moved on 25-11-1988 for extension of time for six months for compliance of the order. This Court by order dated 16-2-1989 passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 651/88, extended the time by requiring the respondents to dispose of the disciplinary proceeding within six months from the date of the said order. The departmental proceeding completed on 20-12-1988 and the final order awarding punishment by Disciplinary Authority was passed on 12-4-1990 after approval from Public Service Commission. The petitioner filed this petition on 15-5-1989 for taking action for contempt of Court against the respondent in not obeying the order of this Court even within the extended period. After the respondent filed additional reply to the rejoinder, this Court felt that the final order in the departmental proceeding was not passed even within the extended period granted by this Court and, therefore, by order dated 18-4-1990 directed the authority concerned to show cause why the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- may not be imposed personally on him for not obeying the order of this Court.
4. Originally the petitioner had filed this contempt petition against several respondents but names of all the respondents except the present respondent Shri S. C. Gupta were deleted by order dated 28-8-1989 on the application made by the petitioner. Shri S. C. Gupta is the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department with effect from 17-2-1989. Earlier, a reply to the contempt petition was filed by S. L. Dandir, Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, tendering unqualified apology for the delay in deciding the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. It was submitted in the written reply that the departmental proceeding had already concluded within the extended period when a report was made on 20-12-1988. But the final order could not be passed by the Disciplinary Authority within time because the matter had to be processed in accordance with rules. After the enquiry was completed, the matter was forwarded to the Minister concerned for approval and subsequently to the Public Service Commission for its opinion. The respondent Shri S. C. Gupta also filed additional reply to the contempt petition reiterating almost the same facts with unqualified apology for the delay due to statutory procedure which had to be processed at various levels which caused the delay despite sincere efforts to expedite the matter. He has stated in the reply supported by an affidavit that he has full respect and regard to the directions and orders passed by this Court and having regard to the circumstances, has prayed for excusing the delay.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the contemner had flagrantly delayed the disposal of the departmental enquiry and passing final order without any reason and excuse thereby making a mockery of the order of this Court which distinctly amounts to contempt of Court. He further submitted that apology was not tendered at the first instance but at a late stage and relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197, and Advocate General, Bihar v. M. P. Khair Industries, AIR 1980 SC 946.
6. It may be pointed out that every abuse of the process of the Court may not necessarily amount to Contempt of Court, but abuse of the process of the Court with an intention to obstruct the due course of administration of justice would certainly amount to Contempt of Court. In this connection, it would be relevant to point out that it may be necessary to punish the conduct of a person or authority which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process affecting the interest of the public in the administration of justice, because the public have an interest, and a vital stake in the effective and proper administration of justice and unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties being perished. The Court, therefore, is enjoined with the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and it is for this reason that the Court is entrusted with a power to punish for contempt of Court, and not merely to protect the dignity of the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was right in emphasising with regard to tendering of apology at a late stage when the contemner finds that the Court is going to impose punishment and that such apology should not ordinarily be accepted because, in fact, it ceases to be an apology but it would be an act of wriggling out of the adverse situation in which the contemner finds himself to be trapped. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the facts and circumstances of the present case show that the contemner had acted deliberately to hamper the course of justice by avoiding the implementation of the order of this Court within the time limit.
7. Now, adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the original order was passed on 25-2-1988 to dispose of the departmental enquiry within six months. The period of six months would have expired on 25-8-1988 but an application for extension of time was submitted on 25-8-1988 vide Misc. Civil Case No. 651 of 1988. Initially, a prayer for extension of three months alone was made. Neither this application was disposed of till 22-11-1988 nor the departmental enquiry could be concluded and hence another application was moved on 25-11-1988 itself for extension of time for another six months for disposal of the departmental enquiry. This Court by order dated 16-2-1989 extended the time, requiring the disposal of the departmental enquiry within six months. This extended period expired on 15-8-1989 but the departmental enquiry had already completed on 20-12-1988 and the report was accordingly submitted. The final order by the Disciplinary Authority awarding punishment to the petitioner, was passed on 12-4-1990, that is, after the expiry of the extended period of six months. It is for this reason that the contempt proceedings have been initiated. The reason assigned for this delay is the procedure which required to be followed in passing the final order after the report by the Enquiry Officer was submitted. It has been submitted that the petitioner was himself partly responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the departmental proceedings and after the enquiry report was received on 20-12-1988, it had to be forwarded to the Minister concerned for his approval as well as to be Public Service Commission for its opinion and after the approval by the Minister and opinion of the Public Service Commission, the final order was passed on 12-4-1990.
8. The respondent has filed Annexure R-I which is an extract of the minutes showing proceedings of the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry after the order of this Court dated 25-2-1988. A perusal of the said extract goes to show that from 22-6-1988 to 19-8-1988, there were about six hearings fixed before the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings continued to be adjourned at the instance of the petitioner himself for examination of defence witness one Shri Mule who was ultimately dropped. Thus, a period of two months was consumed by the petitioner himself. Then again from 14-10-1988 to 22-11-1988, the petitioner took adjournment on five hearings to sumbit written arguments. Thus, out of the total period of six months within which the departmental proceeding had to be concluded, a period of three months was consumed by the petitioner himself, for nothing. The respondent/contemrier Shri S. C. Gupta, as said earlier, had joined as Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, on 17-2-1989 when the departmental proceeding had already concluded and the matter had been processed for final order. The cumbersome procedure in passing the final order is bound to consume some time in forwarding the matter to the Minister concerned for his approval as well as in seeking opinion of Public Service Commission over which the contemner certainly had no control. Thus, if any delay at that level was caused the respondent/contemner cannot be held responsible. In any case, the first reply for contempt notice was submitted on 16-11-1989 by Superintending Engineer, Public Health Department. In the very first sentence of this reply, an unqualified apology has been tendered for the delay in deciding the pending enquiry. The respondent/contemner Shri S. C. Gupta also in the very first sentence of his personal reply tendered unqualified apology for the delay in deciding the departmental enquiry. It has been specifically urged by him that he has full respect and regard to the directions and the orders passed by this Court and the delay was not wilful but for the circumstances beyond his control. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances stated above, it cannot be said that the respbndent/contemner had wilfully delayed the implementation of the order or that he had tendered unqualified apology at any late stage. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the apology for the delay caused in passing the final order and discharged the notice of the contempt. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.