1995 (1) TMI 407 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant committed contempt of court by violating the High Court's order dated 9th Dec. 1988.
2. Whether the apology tendered by the appellant was bona fide.
3. Whether the punishment awarded to the appellant was excessive.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court:
The appellant was found guilty of contempt by a learned single Judge for repeatedly violating the High Court's order dated 9th Dec. 1988 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16115 of 1988. The order directed that the petitioner, a lecturer, should continue to work and be paid his salary until a regularly selected candidate became available or his services were terminated in accordance with the law. The appellant, as the Honorary Secretary of S.M. College, Chandausi, failed to comply with this order, leading to the filing of a contempt application by the respondent.

2. Bona Fide Apology:
The learned single Judge found that the apology tendered by the appellant was not bona fide but a ruse to escape punishment. The appellant had initially offered an unconditional apology in August 1989 but continued to violate the court's order. The court noted that the appellant's actions demonstrated a lack of genuine contrition and an attempt to evade responsibility.

3. Excessiveness of Punishment:
The appellant argued that the punishment of one month in civil prison and a fine of Rs. 2,000 was excessive. The High Court examined whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court noted that the appellant had admitted his guilt before the learned single Judge and had not taken steps to correct any alleged errors in the judgment. The court also considered the appellant's argument that the responsibility for paying the salary lay with the State Government, not the college management.

The High Court found that the appellant had indeed violated the undertaking given to the court. However, it also recognized that the appellant was an Honorary Secretary and that the college was under the grant-in-aid of the Government, which was responsible for salary payments. Ultimately, the court noted that the order had been substantially complied with, as the respondent received his salary on 11th June 1990, albeit after a delay.

Conclusion:
The High Court modified the judgment of the learned single Judge, concluding that while the appellant was guilty of contempt, the ends of justice would be met by imposing only a fine of Rs. 2,000. The appellant was not required to undergo civil prison. The appeal was partly allowed, and the sentence was modified accordingly.