JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J. :—An odd case of sentence of three months civil imprisonment and attachment of assets of the Central Government and two of its officers for default in instant reinstatement of a Railway Inspector removed from service for misconduct occasions this appeal by special leave.

2. The Court system is neither a cloistered virtue nor a self-righteous process and readily re-examines, in the appellate crucible, the judgments rendered at lesser levels even if the subject matter be, as here, alleged disobedience of a judicial order. Justice is not hubristic and truth triumphs by self-criticism. And so, this court, in keeping with such an invigilative perspective, must review the punitive directive of the trial court, affirmed up to the High Court but challenged before us, that the Union of India and its officers in the Railway Department - the appellants - do suffer distraint of property and imprisonment of person for the contempt of its authority by non-compliance with its order of injunction. This case disturbs us somewhat and constrains us to go to the basics in a certain branch of the jurisprudence of contempt of court.

3. As will presently appear, the synthesis of two seemingly antithetical creeds, both vital to our Republic and powerfully projected by this appeal is the key to the crucial issue where disobedience of a mandatory injunction to retain in service, pendente lite, the respondent, a railway inspector, regardless of the disciplinary proceedings which had by then allegedly culminated in his exit from service (sic). The court shall neither be imperious nor be obsequious. The law, in the area of contempt of court, must avoid the extremes of hyperreactivity to marginal indifference to judicial authority out of pragmatic difficulties and of hypo-respect for court commands in a cavalier spirit of the court has no guns. Why care?

4. The fluid, yet valid, concept of contempt of court Keeps judges under the rule of law; for, personal liberty, under our constitutional order, is protected by a processual armour, even if its deprivation be the product of the judicial process. This caveat is called for in the present case where we are confronted by a bizarre order of contingent imprisonment of unspecified servants and coercive attachment of unparticularised properties of the Union of India. And yet, this order has survived two appeals before arriving here by special leave.

5. The facts are few and the law is not abstruse; yet, in our view, the order under appeal is an overzealous command with fatal failings writ on its face. The respondent, an Inspector in theWestern Railway, was proceeded against for misconduct. He did not show up when the show cause notice was issued; and when the disciplinary steps proceeded further, he artfully rushed to the munsifs court, bypassing the departmental process, and sued for a declaration of immunity and permanent injunction against further govermental action. Inevitably, he moved for an ad interim injuction to restrain the Railways from affecting his position in service by continuing the disciplinary enquiry and to continue to pay his full salary. After hearing both sides the court issued, on April 15, 1974, such an injunction or freeze order, which was appealed against in vain; and eventually, the revision to the High court also proved fruitless. The blanket order, which was sustained, reads thus:

I, therefore, order and direct the N.A. Union of India and its employees not to implement or otherwise put in effect the order of dismissal at 18-1-74 or any other one removing, terminating or dismissing the services of the applicant as I.O.W. of Western Railways and direct further that the applicant shall be retained and continued on post, power, pay, privileges and perquisites attached to the post of Inspector of works, W. Rly. and in the same manner as if no orders of removal or any other one were passed.

In other words he shall be placed in the position as he held it on 14-1-1975 in t