Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Section: VII,45

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)-------Art. 45---Contempt petition---Petitioner filed writ petition for restraining the respondents from recalling the Notification before completion of deputation period of the petitioner but respondents recalled the said Notification despite issuance of stay order by High Court---Held, that record showed that the status quo order was properly served upon respondents and that fact had also been admitted by them during Court proceedings when charge sheet/questionnaire was put to them that they were aware of status quo order---Thus, the action of respondents was a loud and conspicuous transgression of Court order as that fact had been sufficiently substantiated from documentary record placed on record by the petitioner---Under law when contempt proceedings were initiated against a person, he was under obligation to prove his innocence---Respondents on issuance of Court notice submitted unconditional apology---Unconditional apology was not accepted for the reason that the same appeared to be just a halfhearted formality, always observed as a routine matter in such type of quasi criminal proceedings---In the instant case the respondents on one hand tendered and offered an unconditional apology while on the other hand defended their action by stating that orders had been issued by them in the light of the recommendations of Board of Governors---Respondent No. 1 admitted that he had issued the orders despite notice of restraining order of the Court and respondent No. 2 also admitted that he was aware of status quo order issued by the Court but despite that not only participated in the meeting of Board of Governors as member but also passed recommendations against petitioner, hence disruption of Court order by respondents was not only sufficiently substantiated but also accepted---Actions of respondent No. 1 tantamount to disrespecting the Courts as he did not bother to value the Court orders--Conduct of respondents was a glaring contempt---Respondents failed to substantiate their innocence, rather it had been amply proved that they willfully disobeyed the order of the Court while issuing the impugned…