1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J. The captioned application has been preferred under Article 45 of the Interim Constitution, 1974 for initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents/contemnors.
2. Facts giving rise to the instant petition are, petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition No.2326/2024 before this Court on 11.09.2024 with a prayer that respondents be restrained from recalling the notification 26.04.2024 before completion of deputation period of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 directed that status quo prevailing at the moment shall be maintained till next date of hearing, subject to objections from other side, which was extended as the case was not fixed for hearing before the Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition and despite issuance of the stay order by this, Court, even dated orders passed on 21.11.2024 were issued, whereupon the captioned petition has been submitted to initiate a contempt proceedings against respondents.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner by referring to the relevant documents contended that status quo order was issued by this Court in the terms that petitioner shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting and his adjustment order shall not be rescinded but despite that respondents while issuing orders dated 21.11.2024 violated the order of the Court, hence, entail to be punished for disobeying and disregarding the orders of the Court. He further argued that in para 3 of the application it has been blatantly illuminated that status quo order dated 12,09,2024 was duly communicated to the respondent and in written reply the respondents admitted para 3 of the application as correct, hence, admitted the service of summons upon them. The learned Advocate pressed that respondent No.2 stated in the open Court during case proceedings and in reply of questionnaire that no other case is pending against him in the Courts however, another contempt petition against respondent No.2 is subjudice before this Court and is list at serial No.18 of the case list of this bench for today, hence, tell a lie in the open Court, thus, respondents are not entitled to get any leniency of the Court.
4. The learned counsel for respondents argued with vehemence that meeting of Board of Governors was convened, the orders dated 21.11.2024 were issued on the recommendations of the Board of Governors but subsequently' the order dated 21.11.2024 have been recalled h% the Chairman. He further argued that as per note on the minutes of meeting of the Board of Governors the orders to the extent of petitioner were liable to be executed through Secretariat Higher Education after decision by this Court, so, the order of the Court has not been violated, hence, prayed to drop the proceedings. He strenuously claimed that respondent have given assurance to the petitioner that in future no illegal action shall be taken against him, he shall be provided a pleasant environment in performance of his duties as Secretary Board and all the petitioners in other contempt petitions pending against respondents in the Courts shall be dealt with amicably out of Court. While concluding the arguments, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondents have already tendered unconditional apology and today sine any stance left themselves at the mercy of the Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
6. At the very outset it is pertinent to mention that the basic object to proceed for contempt is to maintain the confidence of the general public and the litigants in the Courts in order to rescue the course of justice free and fair to ensure the administration of law and justice thus, the primary goal of awarding punishment to the persons who violate the Court orders is to create a deterrence in the likeminded persons who without bothering for the consequences do transgressions and pollute legal ethics and law.
7. It is relevant to mark that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were not party in the original writ petition, hence,proceedings to their extent were dropped vide order dated 28.11.2024.
8. A perusal of record reveals that petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court by pleaded that he was serving as Assistant Professor BS-17 Govt. boys Degree College Afzal Pur and vide notification dated 26.04.2024, was deputed as Secretary Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, however, he apprehended that respondents are flexing their muscles in order to manage to rescind the notification dated 26.04.2024 on political intervention, hence, prayed to restrain the respondents to 'recall the notification dated 26.04.2024. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 while allowing application for ad-interim relief issued status quo till next date of hearing by prohibited respondent to cancel, amend or modify, notification dated 26.04.2024, subject to objections from other side and the case was fixed for 30.09.2024. On 30.09.2024 the case was not fixed before the Court for hearing, an application for extension of status quo already issued by Court was filed by petitioner and the case was adjourned for 14.11.2024. On 14.11.2024 the case was again not listed before the Court for hearing as tour to circuit was not scheduled then the case was relisted for 02.12.2024.
9. On 12.11.2024 meeting of Board of Governors of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Intermediate and Secondary Education Board Mirpur was convened by Chairman of the Board/respondent No.1, herein and got recommendations that petitioner be repatriated to his parent department and proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 19:1 shall be initiated against him, consequently orders dated 21.11.2024 have been issued. Vide orders dated 21.11.2024 the authority of petitioner to perform as Secretary Board has been snatched, ordered to be repatriated to his parent department and further recommended to be proceeded under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977, thus, the orders dated 21.11.2024 were issued in a flagrant and palpable violation of status quo order issued by this Court.
10. The status quo order was properly served upon respondents and this fact has also been admitted by them during Court proceedings when charge sheet/questionnaire was put to them that they were aware of status quo order. Thus, the action of respondents is a loud and conspicuous transgression of Court order as this fact has been sufficiently substantiated from documentary record placed on record by the petitioner. Under law when contempt proceedings are initiated against a person, he is under obligation to prove his innocence. Reliance may be placed on 2017 SCR 141] Though the desecration of Court order by respondents was proved from documentary evidence brought on record but for further satisfaction of the Court and in order to provide a fair right of hearing to prove their guiltlessness and purity, they were asked to file a written reply/objections on the application if any. The respondents on issuance of Court notice vide order dated 26.11.2024 annulled all the orders dated 21.11.2024 and submitted unconditional apology. Unconditional apology was not accepted for the reason that the same was appeared to be just a half-hearted formality, always observe as a routine matter in such type of quasi criminal proceedings hence, not entails to be pondered. The superior Courts have held various grounds to be considered while accepting apology i.e. (1) apology is offered at the earliest stage of proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of proceedings; (2) apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; (3) apology must be satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should not be half-hearted or mere formality and (4) the contemnor should not endeavour to justify his conduct. Reliance may be placed on 2000 SCMR 1969.
11. In the instant case the respondents at one hand tendered and offered an unconditional apology while on the other hand defended their action by stated that orders dated 21.11.2024 have been issued by them in the light of the recommendations of Board of Governors, hence, was not deserved to be acknowledged.
12. The vernacular and exposed violation of Court order is apparent on the face of the record and the reason listed in the application for unconditional apology was not justified to drop the proceedings because in the objections presented by the respondents they did not deny the issuance of orders dated 21.11.2024 in presence of status quo order by this Court but inspite of this bitter reality another chance was extended to the respondents just in order to satisfy the conscious of the Court, following questionnaire/charge sheet was put to accused/contemnors on 02.12.2024 which was answered as follows:- While replying court queries, the respondent No.1 admitted that he has issued the orders dated 21.11.2024 despite notice of restraining order of this court and respondent No. 2 also admitted that he was aware of status quo order issued by this Court but despite that not only participated in the meeting of Board of Governors as Member but also passed recommendations against petitioner, hence, disruption of Court order by respondents is not only sufficiently substantiated but also accepted. It is also confessed by respondent No.1 that several other contempt petitions against him are subjudice before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and he was earlier warned by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court to remain careful in future, but despite that, the actions of respondent No.1 tantamount to disrespect the Courts as he did not bother to value the Court orders, which is beyond endurability. The respondent No.1 even during Court proceedings tried to mislead the Court by expressing in open Court that no other contempt petition is subjudice before any Court against him but subsequently on Court query he resiled by accepted that some other contempt petitions are also pending against him.
13. Similarly respondent No.2 claimed in the open Court and replied in charge sheet that no other contempt petition in any Court is pending against him whereas another contempt petition against him was subjudice before this Court and was fixed for today at serial No.18 of the cause list of this bench, which was also one of reason that their unconditional apology was shown the door, thus, this conduct of respondents is also a desperate and glaring contempt.
14. The specific stance taken by respondents that impugned orders have been issued in pursuance of recommendations of Board of Governors has got no substance primarily for the reason that meeting of Board was convened by respondent No.1 as Chairman, he himself placed the matter to the extent of petitioner before Board, which on the' face of record is not only malicious but a sheer violation of Court order that can be termed nothing but a subvert and undermining of the Court orders; secondarily the other members of Board except respondents, herein, were not aware of the nature of the writ petition and Court order but respondents did not even bother to bring the true picture of the matter in the notice of other members of Board and thirdly, as per note put on minutes of meeting of Board the matter to the extent of petitioner shall be proceeded after decision by this Court but before decision of this Court on the writ petition filed by petitioner herein, issuance of impugned orders through which authority of the petitioner has been taken back to perform as Secretary makes it obvious that the action has not been taken on the recommendations of Board rather the respondents themselves in violation of note of meeting of Board passed impugned orders by violating order of the Court and all proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner just to give him a lesson that why he has challenged their authority by filing a writ petition before this court, hence, the respondents deserve to face the tune of punishment.
15. The respondents miserably failed to substantiate their innocence, rather it has been amply proved that they willfully disobeyed the order of the Court while issuing the impugned orders, hence, any lenient view by this Court would tantamount to encourage recidivism and inspire the likeminded persons to ignore, disregard, jump and neglect the commands of the Courts, hence, "let the justice be done though the heavens fall."
16. The crux and epitome of the above debate is, respondent No.1 who has performed a key role in issuance of orders dated 21.11.2024 is hereby sentenced to 15 days simple imprisonment whereas keeping in view of the role of respondent No.2 he is punished with simple imprisonment of 7 days, which they will serve in civil prison at their own expenses. By considering the long academic services of respondents and observing judicial restraint it is hereby held that the sentence awarded to them shall not adversely effect their service carrier, except with a stipulation that they shall be removed from their present positions forthwith and shall never be adjusted/posted against any administrative post in future.