Vashisth Narain Pandey vs Prof.A.K.Mittal

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), has been filed because of noncompliance of judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.735 (S/B) of 2000. The Division Bench judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Apex Court with slight modification.

The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the petition are discussed hereunder.

The petitioner who is Ph. D. in Botany, was engaged as Junior Research Assistant in Botany Department by the Gorakhpur University on 20.11.1987. By an order dated 20.2.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher on temporary basis on payment of fixed salary at the rate of Rs.600/. As the petitioner continued in service as Teacher of the University till 1996, necessary papers were sent by the Universities to CSIR, New Delhi, for regularisation of the petitioner''s services as Lecturer in Botany in the Pay Scale of Rs.22004000/. The petitioner also claimed regularization in pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 31(3) (c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, which provides that all persons who are appointed as Lecturer on or before 30.6.1991, shall be entitled for regularization without reference to their case to the Selection Committee. Such persons shall be given temporary appointment by the University in case required substantive vacancy is available in the department on or before 22.11.1991. Further, it has been made mandatory that to claim regularization, it shall be necessary that such incumbent should have been serving continuously upto 22.11.1991 as Lecturer may be, by way of short term arrangement. The other condition provided by the Section is that the incumbent should possess on or before 22.11.1991 the qualification required for regular appointment provided by the Executive Council of the University and that the incumbent should be found suitable for the regular appointment by the Executive Council of a University.

Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, further provides that in case any incumbent is not found suitable for regularization in pursuance of the said provision, such person shall cease to hold such office from such date specified by the Executive Council of the University.

While filing the Writ Petition No.735 (S/B) of 2000, the petitioner had claimed benefit of Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had stopped the salary of the petitioner in the year 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a representation before the Executive Council which was rejected by the Resolution dated 19.7.1998. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act before the Chancellor. However, the petitioner''s claim for regularization as well as payment of salary was rejected by the chancellor by order dated 2.5.2000 on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the required qualification provided under Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It was held by the Chancellor that the petitioner cannot be treated as Teacher of a University to claim regularization under the Act.

The Division Bench of this Court after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, opined that the petitioner shall be deemed to be a teacher of the University and a finding has been further recorded that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed as Ad hoc Lecturer and he satisfied the requirement of Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. From the material on record, their lordships while deciding the controversy, held that the respondents were not entitled to draw any distinction between the teacher and the Lecturer of the University and it was held that the petitioner shall be entitled for regularization in the University and the order passed by the Chancellor dated 2.5.2000 was quashed with consequential benefits. The respondents were also directed to pay the arrears of salary within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 passed in Writ Petition No.735 (S/B) of 2000, is reproduced as under:

�In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2.5.2000 (Annexure1 to the writ petition) and proceedings of the Executive Council dated 19.7.1998 (Annexure24 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed as lecturer in view of Section 31(3)(c) of the Act. He shall be permitted to join as a lecturer and to get regular salary. The arrears shall be paid within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.�

The aforesaid judgment and order was impugned in Special Leave Petition No.4538/2002 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court by the order dated 8.3.2002, had affirmed the judgment of this Court. However, it was provided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said order that the regularization of the petitioner shall be given effect to from the date of delivery of judgment of the High Court i.e., with effect from 21.11.2001. The order dated 8.3.2002 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, is reproduced as under:

�Exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.

Issue notice.

Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Accepts notice.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the only modification which is called for is that the regularization of the respondent will be with effect from the date of High Court''s order.

The special leave petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.�

Admittedly, in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the judgment and order of this Court had been affirmed. The petitioner''s services have been regularized in terms of the judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 and has been paid consequential benefits including salary. However, the petitioner has not been paid arrears of salary of the period for the period 1996 to 22.11.2001.

Feeling aggrieved on account of nonpayment of salary, the petitioner had filed the Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. On 27.10.2005, when the case was taken up, a statement was made by Sri D.K. Arora who appeared on behalf of the respondents that the respondents'' arrears of salary from 1.4.1996 to 20.11.2001 shall be paid within three weeks. The statement made by Sri D.K. Arora, the then learned counsel for the respondents, as recorded in the order of this Court dated 27.10.2005, is reproduced as under:

�Hon''ble A.N. Varma, J.

Against the order denying him regularization, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.735 (S/B) of 2000. This Court vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2001 allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 2.5.2000 as well as 19.7.1998 and directed that he shall be deemed to have been confirmed as Lecturer in view of the provisions referred therein. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to join as Lecturer and shall be paid his salary regularly. Being aggrieved against the said order the University approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 8.3.2002 disposed of the Special Leave Petition with a direction that the regularization of the petitioner shall be with effect from the date of the order passed by the High Court.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though he has been appointed as a Lecturer with effect from 3.4.2002 but his salary for the period 1.4.1996 to 20.11.2001 has not been paid despite his petition having been allowed.

Shri Devendra Kumar Arora who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties states that the entire salary admissible to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.

List on 16.12.2005. On that date the Registrar i.e., opposite party No.5 shall appear in person before this Court and shall file an Affidavit with regard to compliance of the order passed by this Court.�

Inspite of the fact that the undertaking was given before this Court by the respondents after admitting the petitioner''s claim that they shall pay arrears of salary from 1.4.1996 to 20.11.2001 within six weeks, it was not paid. On 16.12.2005 when the case was taken up, contrary to the undertaking given on 27.10.2005 before this Court defence was set up by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of arrears of salary for the period in question. The order dated 16.12.2005 for convenience, is reproduced as under:

�A Writ Petition No.735 (S/B) of 2000 was filed by the petitioner for payment of regular salary as well as regularization of services.

Petitioner was working on the payment of Rs.600/ P.M. on fixed term basis since 1990. The writ petition No.735 (S/B)/2000 was allowed by the order dated 21.11.2001 directing the respondents to regularize petitioner''s services and also permit the petitioner to join as lecturer and get the regular salary.

An S.L.P. was preferred before Hon''ble Supreme Court which was disposed of finally by the order dated 8th of March, 2002. While disposing of the S.L.P., Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the only modification which is called for is that regularization of the respondent shall be w.e.f. from the date of High Court''s order. So far as payment of salary to the petitioner is concerned, it was not modified by Apex Court.

A defence has been taken by respondent No.5 while filing the Supplementary Affidavit that petitioner shall be entitled for arrears of salary only w.e.f. the date of passing of the order by this Court. For the other relief, he should approach the Apex Court again.

This Court is very well within the power to interpret the Judgment of Apex Court and in the event of non compliance and lack of any ambiguity, this Court can direct the respondents to enforce the judgment and order of this Court or may proceed under Section 12 of the Contempt of the Court. While interpreting the judgment of this Court, it is not open to consider only a portion of the judgment but the entire judgment should be taken into consideration. While going through the judgment, it is obvious that this Court had taken notice of the fact that petitioner was getting only Rs.600/ P.M. and was denied the regular pay scale inspite of discharging the duty. Accordingly, this Court had categorically directed to permit the petitioner to join as lecturer and get the regular salary. The consequential benefit was also provided by this Court. The Apex Court had modified the judgment of this Court only to the extent it relates to date of regularization. The judgment of the Apex Court does not provide that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the regular pay scale from the date when he has joined the Gorakhpur University on the post of lecturer. Accordingly, primafacie, a case is made out against the opposite parties to proceed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

Registrar of the respondent University is present in person. It has been submitted that the registrar has passed an order in compliance of the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor of the University. Virtually the Registrar has communicated the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University. Accordingly, primafacie, a case is made out to proceed against the respondent Vice Chancellor as well as the respondent Registrar. This Court feels that the last opportunity should provided to the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner keeping in view the order passed by this Court.

List on 9th of February, 2006.

In case, by the next date of listing, petitioner is not paid the salary alongwith the arrears in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court as well as keeping in view the observations made today in the present contempt petition, the respondent Vice Chancellor as well as Registrar shall appear in person on the next date of listing for further proceeding which may include framing of charges. It shall be out of place to mention that on 27th of October, 2005, a submission was made by the respondents that they will pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner.�

Against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2005 the respondent No.3 Prof. Arun Kumar and Others, filed Special Appeal No.25 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court while finally deciding the special appeal had held that for the purpose of framing of charges, it is not necessary that contemner should present in person and Court may proceed even in absence of the contemner. The operative portion of the order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.25 of 2006 is reproduced as under:

�The interest of justice will suffice if in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2005 the affidavit is filed giving the details of the compliance of the judgment of this Court and of Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, it is not necessary that at the time of framing of charge the contemners shall be present but once Hon''ble Contempt Judge arrives at a conclusion that the order has been flouted and the contemners are to be punished they can always be called to appear in person so as the punishment be pronounced in their presence.

In the circumstances interest of justice will suffice that on the date fixed in the contempt petition an affidavit is filed by the respondents of the Contempt Petition and the respondents Vice Chancellor and Registrar may not appear in person on the date fixed.

With these observations, with the consent of parties, Special Appeal stands finally disposed of.�

After disposal of the Special Appeal No.25 of 2006, the contempt petition was listed on 7.3.2006. After hearing the parties counsel, a finding was recorded that prima facie case is made out to proceed against the contemners as there seems to be deliberate contempt on their part in noncompliance of the order of this Court under writ jurisdiction.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, charges were framed on 18.4.2006 against Sri Satish Chandra Sharma Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, Prof. Arun Kumar ViceChancellor Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, Sri A.K. Pal Deputy Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, Sri Mahesh Chandra Former Registrar, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and Prof. A.K. Mittal ViceChancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhayaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.

Against the framing of charges dated 18.4.2006, the contemners had preferred an appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act.

During the course of hearing of the Contempt Appeal No.27 of 2006, a statement was made before the Division Bench of this Court on 5.2.2007 to the effect that the order for payment of arrears of salary has already been passed but actual payment could not be done because of curfew imposed in the city of Gorakhpur. The order passed by the Division Bench in Contempt Appeal No.27 of 2006 on 5.2.2007 is reproduced as under:

�Hon''ble O.P. Srivastava, J.

Hon''ble R.K. Rastogi, J.

Sri Shishir Chandra holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kalra states on information that Vice Chancellor of the University has informed him that order for payment of arrears of salary has already been passed but actual payment of the same could not be made because of curfew imposed in Gorakhpur.

Let this matter be listed on 15.2.2007.

In the meantime, payment should be made and relevant order passed by University be placed before this Court, failing which interim order will automatically stand vacated. The interim order will remain in operation only upto 15.2.2007.�

When the order of this Court was not complied with the Division Bench had vacated the interim order on 15.2.2007 which is reproduced as under:

�Hon''ble O.P. Srivastava, J.

Hon''ble Shiv Charan Sharma, J.

�A prayer has been again made on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment. Case is adjourned.

However, the interim order dated 12.5.2006 is vacated.�

Thereafter, again the present case was listed from time to time for final hearing. On 11.7.2007, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents prayed that the respondents may be granted time for compliance of Division Bench judgment for payment of arrears of salary for the period between 1996 to 2001. Since charges were already framed as noted hereinabove, and the respondents have continuously flouted the undertaking given before this Court, the petitioner''s counsel was permitted to advance his argument.

Sri O.P.M. Tripathi had completed his argument. Thereafter, Sri Rajesh Chandra Mishra also advanced argument on behalf of the respondents. On 12.7.2007, Sri Akhilesh Kalra Advocate appeared for the respondents and concluded his argument and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary of the period 1996 to 2001. The argument advance by Sri Akhilesh Kalra was at the face of record, contrary to the undertaking given before this Court not only in the present proceedings but before the Division Bench in contempt appeal.

It is a sorry state of affairs on the part of the respondents who are holding high offices in the field of education. Once voluntarily, they had given undertaking that the petitioner shall be paid arrears of salary in the present contempt proceedings as well as before the Division Bench, they being persons holding high office in the University, should have adhered to their words.

On 7.7.2007 Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Kalra, for the respondents concluded arguments. While concluding argument, Sri Akhilesh Kalra submitted that an order has been passed for payment of arrears of salary, and the respondents are ready to tender apology. Inspite of statement given at bar before this Court again respondents have not adhered to their words. Neither any apology has been tendered nor the order which was alleged to have been passed by them for payment of arrears of salary is placed on record till date.

Undoubtedly, the contemners who were and are occupying his office in the field of education i.e., Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur on the post of ViceChancellor, Registrar and Deputy Registrar are expected to comply with the order of judgment of Division Bench in its letter and spirit. In case there was any doubt in their mind relating to payment of arrears of salary for the period 1996 to 2001, then they could have moved application for clarification of judgment either in this Court or before the Apex Court but the same has not been done. On the other hand, the respondents have chosen on their own to give undertaking in the manner discussed hereinabove before this Court that they shall pay arrears of salary to the petitioner. Once they have given undertaking during the course of hearing either before this Bench or before the Division Bench which was ceased with the contempt appeal, then they do not have any right to shift their stand relating to petitioner''s entitlement for payment of arrears of salary. After the giving of undertaking, there is no option left with the respondents except to pay the salary. The respondents do not have any right to change their stand for any reason whatsoever.

The manner in which the respondents have tried to prolong the litigation as discussed hereinabove, either by filing special appeal or by making statement before this Court or by changing their stands relating to petitioner''s entitlement of payment of salary, indicates that the respondents have flouted the judgment of this Court deliberately, intentionally and consciously.

Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution, (10th Edn., pp. 19394) said that ''with us every official, from Prime Minister done to a constable or a collector of taxes is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen''.

In these formative years of our nation building, it is more important than ever to recognize that in a pluralist society law is the greatest and the only integrating factor. Respect for law and its institutions is the only assurance that can hold a pluralist nation together. It is the solemn duty of the judiciary to enforce the law against individuals, against the institution and against the executive.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another v. State of Gujarat and Others, held that law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope. The relevant portion from the case is reproduced as under:

�24. It was significantly said that law to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of law. It has to keep the promise to justice and it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchalantly. The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope. Increasingly, people are believing as observed by Salmon quoted by Diogenes Laertius in Lives of the Philosophers, �Laws are like spiders� webs: if some light or powerless thing falls into them, it is caught, but a bigger once can break though and get away.� Jonathan Swift, in his �Eassay on the facultires of the Mind� said in similar lines: �Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and homets break through.�

The interest of society is not be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. It is the established law that the Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the �majesty of the law�. The administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a Court of law in the future as in the case before it.

In the case of [(2005) 1 UPLBEC 325]: E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association and another, their lordships of Apex Court had noticed the tendency of Government officers to somehow or the other circumbent the orders of Courts and try to take recourse of one justification or the other. Such action shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. Hon''ble Supreme Court further held that in democratic set up the Court cannot be subservient to the administrative fait.

In the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Rajendra Singh and another; 2004 AIR SCW 4812, their lordships held that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision, which has received its finality, had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari and Another v. Union of India and other: 2000 AIR SCW 4675 & (2001) 10 SCC 496; T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, 1995 AIR SCW 4086: AIR 1996 SC 302, 1996 CriLJ 426, 1995 (50 SCC 619 and Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, 1994 AIR SCW 2074; AIR 1994 SC 2252.

In Lakshman Prasad Agarwal v. Syed Mohammad Kareem, 2002 All. CJ 395, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that while considering the question of disobedience or otherwise of an order not only the letter of the order but also its spirit has to be considered by the Court.

In Bank of Baroda v. Sadar Uddin Hasan Daya; AIR 2004 SC (First Supplementary) p.942. Hon''ble Supreme Court held that contempt serves a dual purpose of vindication of public interest by punishment of a contemptuous conduct and coerces the contemner to act according to law. It further held that anyone who misleads the Court, or obstructs the course of justice and brings the judicial institution into disrepute should be dealt with firmly.

In [2005 (23) LCD 1082]; Phuleshwar v. Smt. Santwana Tewari and Others, this Court had granted custodial punishment with exemplary costs on account of defiance of orders of this Court. Apology submitted at belated stage, was turned down being not permissible.

In the case of (1997) 4 SCC 430; State of Bihar and Others v. Subhash Singh, Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the Constitution has devised permanent bureaucracy as part of the political executive. The normal principle that the permanence bureaucracy is accountable to the political executive is subject to judicial review. The doctrine of �full faith and credit� applied to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The bureaucracy is also accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts. The hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their inbuilt discipline. Hon''ble Supreme Court further proceeded to hold that a deliberate delay caused by bureaucracy should be dealt with firmly in accordance with law. Intentional and deliberate delay causes public injustice and gives manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage.

From the conduct of respondents and repeated disobedience of the orders of this Court and undertaking given from time to time indicates that respondents have willfully disobeyed and in case they are not punished, it shall given a wrong signal to everybody in the country. It is very sad that the respondents have not given due regard to their own undertaking and respect to this Court. Such act has been deprecated in the case of [(2003) 10 SCC 760: David Jude v. Hannah Grace Jude and Others].

In the case of [(1995) 3 SCC 507]: Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has defined the ''Civil contempt'' as under:

�43. Civil contempt is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Thus, any willful disobedience to the order of the Court to do or abstain from doing any act is prima facie a Civil contempt. Civil contempt arises where the power of the Court is invoked and exercised to enforce obedience to orders of the Court.�

There cannot be anything more important than to keep the esteem of justice clear and prue in the bye laws.

The conduct of the contemner is highly reprehensive. If the people lose faith in justice imparted by the highest Court of the State, woe be to orderly life. The fragment of Civilized society would get broken up and shall crumble down.

Though, at the time of hearing Sri Akhilesh Kalra learned counsel informed that order has been passed for payment of entire arrears of salary and he wishes to file an affidavit and he was permitted to do so but the same was not brought on record till date. Though orally, learned counsel had tendered apology but nothing has been placed on record in writing till date. Even assuming that the respondents tend to tender apology it shall be of no use at belated stage.

A country or society professing the rule of law as its basic feature or characteristics does not distinguish between the high and low, weak or mighty. In the present case, from the very beginning attempt has been made not only to overreach the judgment and order of this Court but also to try red hearings. It is worse that the respondents had tried to prolong the litigation by disagreeing their own undertakings.

In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 1, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has deprecated half hearted apology tendered at belated stage. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

�20. In B.M. Bhattacharjee (Major General) v. Russel Estate Corpn. it was observed by this Court that

''[all of the officers of the Government] must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country, order of [the Courts] have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of the Apex Court for that matter any Court should not be trifled with]�

any country or society professing the rule of law as its basic feature or characteristic does not distinguish between high or low, weak or mighty. Only monarchies and even some democracies have adopted the ageold principle that the king cannot be sued in his own Courts.

The inevitable conclusion is that both Contemners 1 and 2 deliberately flouted the orders of this Court in a brazen manner. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was no Mens rea involved. That fact situation clearly shows to the contrary.

Learned counsel appearing for contemners 1 and 2 stated that they have tendered unconditional apology which should be accepted.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others; (2003) 5 SCC 376, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has rejected the apology extended at belated stage to escape the punishment of Courts in following words:

�22. The conduct of the contemner, as recited above, is beyond condonable limit. It is now a wellsettled principle that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the contemner. At the same time, the apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology tendered by the respondent is at a belated stage to escape punishment of the Court. Furthermore, as already noticed, in para 6 of the affidavit he has stated that he has not committed any contempt and defended his action. In para 9 of the affidavit, as quoted above, though it is stated that he tenders unconditional apology, it is not really so, as in para 6 of the affidavit he had defended his action. Therefore, the apology so tendered by the contemner is not a product of remorse or contrition.�

In view of the above, it is amply clear that the respondents are guilty of deliberate, intentional and conscious disobedience of judgment and order of this Court. The Supremacy of the law is to be maintained at all costs. Whosoever may be and howsoever he or she is, shall fall within the law. No matter how powerful and how reach, he or she may be. The conduct of the respondents is reprehensive and invites custodial punishments.

However, while considering the question on the quantum of punishment, individual role should be seen. Notices were issued to respondents on 27.10.2005, Sri D.K. Arora learned counsel had given undertaking on 27.10.2005.

Prof. A.K. Mittal (O.P. No.1) while filing an affidavit along with the application dated 7.1.2005, stated that the then Vice Chancellor of the Unviersity Prof. R.R. Pandey left for heavenly abode on 27.1.2004. Being the senior most Professor and Head of Department of the history in Gorakhpur University, he officiated on the post of ViceChancellor from 27.7.2004 to 18.1.2004. It has been submitted by him that after receipt of copy of the judgment of this Court, he had marked the same for compliance to the officer concerned. However, before he could take effective steps for compliance, Prof. Arun Kumar had resumed duty as regular ViceChancellor on 19.11.2004.

Sri Mahesh Chandra (O.P. No.2) while filing an affidavit along with the application dated 7.1.2005 stated that he was transferred on 14.12.2004 from Gorakhpur University to Chhatrapati Shahuji Mahraj Kanpur University, Kanpur. It has been stated by him that notice of the present contempt proceedings had not been served on him and he had received the notice from the Gorakhpur University on 4.1.2005 at the time when he had already resumed to discharge duties as Registrar of Chhatrapati Shahuji Mahraj Kanpur University, Kanpur.

The O.P. No.1 and 2 while filing affidavit have submitted that they have not held the office of ViceChancellor and Registrar respectively for reasonable period after service of order. Hence they are not responsible for compliance of judgment of this Court affirmed by the Apex Court. They should be discharged from contempt proceedings. At the face of the record, the submissions of the O.P. No.1 and 2 seem to be well founded.

Sri A.K. Pal (O.P. No.4) who is Deputy Registrar in the Gorakhpur University while filing affidavit dated 24.3.2005, without giving any explanation relating to his conduct, has stated that after his transfer, Sri Mahesh Chandra had started to officiate on the post of Registrar of the Gorakhpur University. He has adopted the averments made by Prof. Arun Kumar the ViceChancellor of the University.

Sri Satish Chandra, Registrar of the University had tried to defend his action saying that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of arrears of salary of the period in question. He has further proceeded to defend his case by interpreting the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court with the averments that the Division Bench had while allowing the writ petition held that the petitioner was entitled for regularization and not consequential benefits i.e., the period of salary for the period right from 1996.

Prof. Arun Kumar ViceChancellor of the respondent University took over charge on 19.11.2004. In para6 of his affidavit dated 24.3.2005, he has stated that after obtaining legal advice he had rejected the representation of the petitioner on 2/4.2.2005 which was duly communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University, vide his letter dated 14/16.2.2005 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure1 to the affidavit dated 24.3.2005. While defending his action the opposite party No.3 who is ViceChancellor of the University, had tried to oppose the petitioner''s case for payment of arrears of salary by relying upon the petitioner''s service career holding that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of arrears of salary.

The order dated 2/4.2.2005, communicated by the Registrar on 16.2.2005, at the face of record shows that the ViceChancellor declined to pay arrears of salary consciously by interpreting the Division Bench judgment of this Court in his own manner may be under the legal advice.

However, as discussed hereinabove, though on one hand, the opposite party No.3 had declined to make payment of arrears of salary on the other hand, Sri D.K. Arora representing him had given an undertaking on 27.10.2005 (supra) that the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner within six weeks. Again similar assurance was given on 16.12.2005 (supra). During the course of hearing of special appeal against the framing of charges similar undertaking was noted by the Division Bench on 27.1.2006 (supra), in Special Appeal No.25 of 2006. Thus, at the face of record the opposite party No.3 has deliberately, intentionally and consciously had tried to circumvent the judgment of this Court, and defied the undertaking which is reprehensive and deplorable.

The conduct of opposite party No.3 who is holding highest post in the academic field is deplorable and it can not be justified in any manner. The conduct of the highest priest of the academic field should be above board and ideal to inspire new generation. Article 51A of the Constitution of India while laying down fundamental duties envisages that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.

Education is a process which provides for intellectual, moral and physical development of a child for good character formation; mobility to social status; an opportunity to scale equality and a powerful instrument to bring about social change including necessary awakening among the people. Education promotes intellectual, moral and social democracy. Education lays foundation of good citizenship and is a principal instrument to awaken the child to intellectual and cultural pursuits and values in preparing the child for later professional training and helps him to adjust to the new environment. In valueoriented education, ethical values help in characterbuilding and develop discipline in students. Dr. Radha Krishnan was of the view that �education is meant to enable individuals to tackle the myriad problems of society and to cope with the accelerated pace of change in several spheres�. Dr. Radha Krishnan further said that �man must also realize that in a society where there is social injustice, gross inequality and lack of fraternity, individual liberty cannot be preserved. It must also be borne in mind that individual freedom entails social responsibility. Education, therefore, transforms the social order by promoting a healthy nationalism and the spirit of internationalism�.

Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi said, �a teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher''s own life than they do from books. If teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them�.

Shri Aurobindo said that, �it is the teacher''s province to hold aloft the torch, to insist at all times and at all places that this nation of ours was founded in idealism and that whatever may be the prevailing tendencies of the times, our children shall learn to live among the sunlit peaks.� When society has given such a pedestal, the conduct, character, ability and disposition of a teacher should be to transform the student into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive to learn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life with dedication, discipline and devotion with an enquiring mind but not with blind customary beliefs. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher, even the best education shall fail.

Keeping in view these principles in mind, the conduct of the opposite party No.3 does not seem to be pardonable. His conduct warrants for a custodial punishment with exemplary costs. However, the conduct of the opposite party No.1 and 2 does not seem to be deliberate and intentional to defy the judgment of this Court. Hence they are liable to be discharged. The conduct of opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 shows falling standard in educational field and in case they are not punished severally, it shall give a wrong message to the society. O.P. No.3 is the highest authority of the University. Hence heavy burden lies on him to implement the judgment of this Court.

Though the opposite party No.4 and 5 had followed the mandate of opposite party No.3 but it was their duty not to close their eyes to the letter and spirit of the judgment of this Court and keeping in view the undertaking given from time to time in the manner stated hereinabove. They are also liable to be punished under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.

Apart from the above, the opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 are also liable to pay exemplary costs on account of mental pain and agony extended by them to the petitioner by their deliberate actions, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344, Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India.

In view of the above, the opposite party No.1 and 2 are discharged. However, the opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 are held guilty under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.

Opposite party No.3 Prof. Arun Kumar ViceChancellor is punished and sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/ and in the event of nonpayment of fine, he shall further undergo one month simple imprisonment. He shall also pay costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/ each.

The opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 shall deposit the costs in this Court within one month from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the same. In the event the costs is not deposited, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur shall recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and remit the same to this Court within three months.

Let opposite party No.3, 4 and 5 appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 10th of August, 2007 to serve the sentence. In case, they do not appear, then nonbailable warrants shall be issued to secure their arrest to serve out sentence awarded. Learned Counsel for respondents shall inform the contemners accordingly.

The petition is allowed accordingly.

Let the record be remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow forthwith by the Registry of this Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow shall ensure the compliance of the judgment.

(Petition allowed)