1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--An application for taking contempt of Court proceedings was filed against Fazal-ur-Rehman, who was the General Manager of the Azad Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank Limited at the relevant time, and respondent Zahid. Hussain Chaudhry, Senior Auditor of the Azad Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank Limited. As detailed below, the allegation against them is that they wilfully disobeyed the judgment of this Court pronounced on 9th of January, 1995. The judgment was given in Civil Appeal No,36 of 1994 titled "Raja Muhammad Azam Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Bank Ltd and 6 others" and Civil Appeal No, 47 of 1994 titled "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others v. Raja. Muhammad Azam Khan and other's." The respondents respectively sent two separate notices to the petitioner about each of which it is stated that it amounted to contempt of Court.
2. ' The background of the present proceedings is that the petitioner was substantively Deputy General Manager of Azad Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank Limited and was also holding additional charge of General Manager. He tendered his resignation from service of the Bank on Ist of February, 1993. The resignation was tendered on account of stated reason that he was not being allowed to perform his duties with honesty. The resignation was accepted on 3rd of February, 1993 with immediate effect. On 1st of September 1993 a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner by Administrator of the Cooperative Bank in which as many as 14 charges were levelled against him and it was stated that the petitioner appeared to be prima fade guilty of violation of sub-rules
(i) to (ii) of Rule 21 of the Staff Service Rules of the Bank. He was called upon to submit his reply within fifteen days failing which it was threatened that his resignation would be converted into dismissal and also that proceedings will be taken to recover some alleged losses which had been caused to the Bank. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the notice mentioned above. The High Court accepted the writ petition and the notice under reference was quashed after reaching the conclusion that it was without lawful authority and mala fide. It was held by the High Court that upon acceptance of his resignation and handing over of charge the petitioner "was relinquished of obligations and duties, assigned to him, in the Service of the Bank."
3. This Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.
4. ' The contempt application was initially filed against Fazal-ur-Rehman and Zahid Hussain Chaudhry but after previous hearing application so far it relates to Fazal-ur-Rehman was dismissed on 28th of October, 1997.
5. ' Now we turn to the letter sent to the petitioner by respondent Zahid Hussain Chaudhry, as Senior Auditor of the Azad Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank. In the letter, which is numbered as 2280 and was issued on 30th of May, 1997, the respondent stated that as a result of the audit report for the period commencing from 1st of January, 1986 to 31st of January, 1993 an amount of Rs,1,86,993 was liable to be repaid by the petitioner on account of certain items mentioned therein.
6. The petitioner was ordered to deposit the amount within fifteen days, if it had not already been deposited in the Bank. In the letter seven items were mentioned. The items relate to sumptuary allowance, travelling allowance, house rent, repaid of Bank building, audit fee paid to a Chartered Accountant and counsel fee paid to an Advocate. A comparison of the show-cause notice issued on 1st of September, 1993 and the letter written by the respondent on 30th of May, 1997 shows that except one item, being item No,4 relating to house rent, all other items are the same which formed the basis of the notice which was quashed in the previous proceedings. In the previous proceeding there were seven respondents including the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank Limited of which respondent is the Senior Auditor.
7. ' From the foregoing it appeared that respondent may have disobeyed the judgment of this Court given in Civil Appeals Nos.36 and 47 of 1994 instead of acting in aid of this Court as he was required to do under subsection (3) of section 42-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act. Accordingly a show cause-notice was issued to the respondent alongwith the statement of allegations.
8. ' Facts in the case are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner on 30th May, 1997 in which he directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs,1,86,993 on account of seven items, namely, sumptuary allowance, entertainment dated 20-5-1991, travelling allowance, house rent, repair of bank building, audit fee paid to a chartered Accountant and counsel fee paid to an Advocate. Except the item relating to house rent, all other items were the same which were sought to be recovered from the petitioner at the previous occasion when he filed writ petition and the previous notice was quashed by the High Court as well as by this Court.
9. Admittedly, therefore, the respondent has through his notice demanded amounts fewer than six heads from the petitioner although his previous notice demanding amounts under these heads had been quashed by this Court.
10. ' Before initiating contempt proceedings it was thought proper to invite parawise comments on the contempt application. In the comments filed by the respondent he submitted that the notice which he sent to the petitioner on 30th of May, 1997 had nothing to do with the judgment of the Supreme Court and that he had, therefore, not committed any contempt of the Court. However, he stated that he respected the august Supreme Court and if the Court considers that the notice sent by him violates the judgment of the Court then he tenders unqualified apology. It shows that the respondent was aware of the judgment of this Court and its contents. Subsequently in response to show-cause notice the respondent submitted that he could not even think of lowering the authority and prestige of the Court and "if the Hon'ble Court in any way deems any action deed or the word of the non-petitioner as such the non-petitioner has already tendered unconditional apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court." He then proceeded to make the following remarks "Moreover, the letter dated 30-5-1997 in any way offends the dictum of the Hon'ble Courts it should be treated as withdrawn".
11. The respondent did not withdraw the notice sent to the petitioner nor did he tender unqualified apology. He instead submitted that if the Court was of the opinion that his action was tantamount to lowering the authority and prestige of the Court then he placed himself at the mercy of the Court. About notice also he put a condition that it should be treated as withdrawn if in any way it offended the dictum of the Court. However, at the time of arguments it was brought to our notice that the respondent had withdrawn the notice.
12. ' It is clear from the above that the respondent acted contrary to the clear finding given by this Court in the judgment referred above and, thus, tried to lower the authority and prestige of this Court. He has clearly disobeyed the order passed in the judgment of this Court and is, therefore, found guilty of contempt of Court.
13. ' It was contended by Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia that the respondent may be let off because he has tendered unqualified apology. He also cited verses of surahs Al-i-Imran, Az-Zumar and Ash- Shura of the Holy Qur'an relating to forgiveness. He also quoted Order 7, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules as well as section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1993 which lay down that unqualified apology can be tendered at any time before execution.
14. ' On the other hand the learned Advocate-General Raja Shiraz Kayani submitted that it has been held in Syed Aajaz Ali Gilani, Advocate v. Sardar Atique Ahmad Khan (1995 SCR 176) that no conditional apology would only be a mitigating factor. We have already noticed that the action of the respondent is wilful. His apology is also not unqualified although he has used the word "unqualified" more than once. He submitted unqualified apology and throws himself at the mercy of the Court if the court comes to the conclusion that his action amounted to contempt of Court. In Syed Aajaz Ali Gillani's case unqualified apology was tendered. Even then it was observed by this Court as follows:-- ' "Apology is not always a defence in contempt matters. In this case we would like to dispel the impression that it is so. If Courts start accepting apology as a routine then commission of this offence would become a practice. Persons with evil design who do not like fair dispensation of justice would attack the judiciary and Judges to further their ends; and when an action is initiated they would bail themselves out by filing an apology."
15. ' The case is proved against the respondent and there is no mitigating factor except that the respondent has at the end of the proceedings filed unqualified apology, but still we would not like to pass a harsh sentence. Finding him guilty of contempt of Court, we sentenced Zahid Hussain Chaudhry to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,5,000. The fine may be deposited tomorrow falling which Zahid Hussain Chaudhry will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.