A learned Single Judge must adhere to procedural rules in contempt proceedings and refer matters to a Division Bench when questioning prior rulings, maintaining judicial discipline and propriety.

1. Introduction:
In his seminal book 'On the Rule of Law, History, Politics and Theory', the learned author Brian Z Tamanaha observes that the apparent unanimity in support of the rule of law is a feat unparalleled in history and that no other single political ideal has ever achieved global endorsement. Reminding us of the ideological abuse and general over - use of what has now become a contested concept of rule of law, albeit only in some schools of jurisprudence, the learned author has stressed that the principle of 'sovereignty of laws' has subordinated the principle of 'popular sovereignty'

2. Exasperated at the mounting contempt cases, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, per me, has observed in A. Suseelamma and Others v. District Educational Officer and Others, 2014 (4) ALD 537 thus:
“It has become a rule, rather than an exception, that a litigant, having obtained an order from a Constitutional Court, is not sure of the order bearing the fruit of relief in actual terms. Every litigant is compelled, under varied circumstances, to knock the doors of the Court repeatedly with the same cause. The insouciant attitude of certain officials has reduced the solemn constitutional power of contempt, as enshrined under Art.215 of the Constitution of India, to that of an execution proceeding under O.21 of Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in every second instance of remedial orders given by the High Court, to have the order enforced, the petitioner is required to file a contempt case.”

3. Facts:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in an aided college, filed WP (C) No. 25527/2014, ventilating his grievance that the Government, having granted the benefit of enhanced pay, now, after twelve years, is taking steps to withdraw the said benefit. It is his particular grievance that without taking recourse to due process of law, the Government has issued directions to recover from him what is said to be the excess salary paid earlier. Apprehensive of the coercive steps contemplated by the Government in that regard, the petitioner sought an interim direction, which was given on 30/09/2014 to the following effect:
“The learned Standing Counsel seeks time to get instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that Ext. P6 was issued without due process, proposing to withdraw the benefit of pay granted to the petitioner twelve years ago. It is apprehended that now, the authorities have decided to take coercive steps to recover what is said to be the excess salary paid earlier to the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, there shall been interim suspension of Ext. P6 for a period of 3 weeks.”

4. On 10th October, 2014, the petitioner filed the above contempt case. It is the case of the petitioner that on 04/10/2014 he communicated the interim order of this Court to the respondent through e - mail. Apart from that, the petitioner is also said to have physically handed over a copy of the order to the respondent on 06/10/2014. Despite such clear communication as was made by the petitioner, the respondent official, wilfully ignoring the order of this Court, much later in point of time, effected deductions in the petitioner's salary.

5. On 14/10/2014, when the matter was listed for the first time, directing the Registry to show the name of the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court adjourned the matter to the next day, when again it was a