Contempt proceedings should be sparingly exercised and only in cases where there is substantial interference with the due administration of justice.

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short `the Act) for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for intentionally disobeying the order dated July 02, 2001 in Criminal Appeal titled as Dharam Pal Tewari v. State of Haryana.

2. Dharam Pal-petitioner was working as Lineman (Operation) in Sub Division Pataudi. A criminal case under Sections 452/354 IPC was registered against him vide FIR No. 15 dated 16.1.1997, at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari. He was tried for the offences complained of. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari at the close of the trial, found him guilty. As per judgment dated 9.6.2001, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo one and a half years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisoned for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the judgment dated June 09, 2001, he preferred appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide his order dated July 02, 2001, stayed the operation of the judgment impugned therein and conviction order. He was also allowed bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3. The appeal is still pending. On 28.9.2001, the punishing authority passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of the conviction recorded against him in the aforesaid case.

4. The petitioners grievance is that once the operation of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been stayed, the disciplinary authority could not pass any order affecting his service. In fact, no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner could be passed on the basis of judgment dated June 09, 2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. By passing the order Annexure P-3, respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.

5. It is well settled that the contempt proceedings cannot be initiated merely at the asking of the party. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. That is why the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in spite of a case of contempt having been made out are both discretionary with the Court.

6. In Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and another 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 729 (SC) : JT 2000(1) 337 (SC), it has been held by the Apex Court in para 21 that unless the Court is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that the act complained of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some technical contempt of court but it must be shown that the act of contempt would otherwise substantially interfere with the due course of justice which has been equated with "due administration of justice."

7. Further in para 24 it has been held that, "The Contempt of Courts Act puts an obligation on the Court to assess the situation itself as regards the factum of any interference with the course of justice or due process of law."

8. In Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 260 (SC) : 2001 AIR SCW 1162, it has been held that the contempt procedure is to be sparingly exercised with due care and caution. The observation under para 14 of the judgment read thus :-

"The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the `standard of proof be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of