Wilful disobedience of court orders constitutes contempt, regardless of claims of misunderstanding, especially when clear legal advice is available.

1. These are two contempt applications, one filed under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , and the other filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution for taking action against R. R. Upadhya and S. N. Tewari, respondent, for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

2. S. P. Agarwal, the applicant, was in the service of the District Co - operative Bank, Bijnor, as its Secretary. Certain charges were framed against him and he was placed under suspension on 6-2-1976. After enquiry he was removed from service on 11-6-1976. The Committee of Management of the Bank had been superseded and R. R. Upadhya, Deputy Registrar, Co - operative Societies, was appointed Administrator under S. 35 of the U. P. Co - operative Societies Act. 1965, to manage the affairs of the Bank, S. P. Agarwal challenged the validity of the order of his dismissal before this Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition (No. 1379 of 1976) was admitted on 31st August, 1976, and notices were issued to the Bank and to the Administrator Along with the writ petition an application for stay was also filed. A Division Bench of this Court passed the following ex parte interim order:
"Issue notice.
Operation of the order dated 11-6-1976, communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the officiating Secretary. District Co - operative Bank, Bijnor, and the Resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society concerned shall remain stayed meanwhile. It is, however, made clear that this order does not disable the Administrator from passing fresh orders after obtaining prior approval of the Institutional Board, as contemplated by Regulation 87 of the U. P. Co - operative Employees Service Regulations 1975.
Notice of the writ petition as well as the stay application was served on the Bank and the Administrator. A counter - affidavit was filed on behalf of the Bank and the Administrator with an application dated 6-10-1976 to vacate the interim, order dated 31st August, 1976. After hearing counsel for the parties, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: -
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. We find no justification to vacate the interim order dated 31-8-1976, It is, however, made clear that the Society will be free not to take work from the petitioner, but he shall be paid his salary as and when due."
The applicant S. P. Agarwal obtained a certified copy of the order and submitted the same in the office of the Administrator, and in spite of his repeated reminders his salary was not paid and he was not allowed to work. S. P. Agarwal contacted S. N. Tewari, respondent No. 2, who had been appointed Secretary in place of S. P. Agarwal and insisted that the High Court's order be obeyed but the order of this Court was not complied.

3. In his Writ Petn. No. 1379 of 1976, S. P. Agarwal had raised the question that the order of dismissal had been passed without obtaining prior approval of the Institutional Board as contemplated by regulation 87 of the U. P. Co - operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, While issuing the ex parte interim order on 31-8-1976 the Bench had observed that the Administrator was free to pass fresh order after obtaining approval of the Institutional Board in accordance with Regulation 87 of the said Regulations. R. R. Upadhya, Administrator, took fresh proceedings and after obtaining the approval of the Institutional Board passed another order on 9th February, 1977, dismissing the applicant S. P. Agarwal from service S. P. Agarwal thereafter filed another petition in this Court (Writ Petn. No. 434 of 1977) challenging the validity of the order dated 9th February, 1977. On 11-4-1977. a Division Bench of t