Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.

1. The writ Petitioner is a Home Guard. He was attached to Mandir Bazar Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge of the said police station directed the Petitioner to accompany him to Bhawanipur Police Hospital for the treatment of the said Officer-in-Charge. Surprisingly, the Superintendent of Police, on November 2, 1978, dismissed the Home Guard concerned for complying with the direction of his superior. The Home Guard concerned challenged the order of termination before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 6328(W) of 1979.

2. On November 2, 1987 Sudhir Ranjan Ray, J. allowed the writ application and, consequently, the said rule was made absolute. The order or discharge was set aside and the Respondents were directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of the said order, with all back wages, from October 30, 1978 as might be admissible to him under the relevant rules and in accordance with law. It was, further, directed that the back wages have to be paid to the Petitioner within 60 (sixty) days from the date of his reinstatement.

3. This writ application is moved in order to implement the said order dated November 2, 1978 of this Court inasmuch as, admittedly, the writ Petitioner was not reinstated nor his arrears have been released in terms of the said order dated November 2, 1978.

4. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor the Respondents even tried to offer any defence. The Respondents had full knowledge of the order dated November 2, 1987 and they have no defence or excuse for non-compliance of the said order. However, it is suggested that the present writ application is not maintainable for securing compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court and the writ Petitioner should have moved an application for contempt.

5. A division bench of the Patna High Court in Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. A.I.R. 1983 Pat. 8 [LQ/PatHC/1982/23] held 'Now I take up the submissions of Mr. Singh that even if there was a violation of the order action has to be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is a self contained Act and procedure has been laid down for violation of such orders which may amount to civil or criminal contempt. The inherent power of the High Court- the argument continues- puts a limit on the powers by requiring a trial of the issue and enjoins that no sentence can be imposed, unless the Court is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. And in this connection reliance has been placed on some decisions which I will discuss later but at the very outset I must say the argument is wholly misconceived. The question of committal or non-committal under the Contempt of Court's Act is one of the discretion of the Court and can be exercised when this Court is fully satisfied that there has been deliberate attempt to flout the order of this Court. That will depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the order and the act complained of. But without initiating a proceeding for contempt this Court can quash any order or proceeding done in disregard of such orders which may also tantamount to contempt. It is very difficult to accept this extreme proposition that the acts done in defiance of Court's order can only be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act where a complete machinery is provided for, and in no other manner. The Act does not put any bar. By accepting this proposition this Court will have to completely, ignore the illegal acts of the subordinate authorities and, I may hasten to add, this will lead to dangerous results.

6. It is, therefore, settled law that the second writ application is maintainable for implementation of an earlier order of the writ Court. This Court must issue proper directions for proper implementation of previous directions. Where there has been an order, the order must be complied with. An act done in willful disobedience of a Court order is not only contempt, but, also, an illegal and invalid act. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched .in comprehensive phraseology and the said article recognizes a very wide power on the High Courts to remedy injustice wherever it is found.

7. It has been held in Begunkodar High School v. Samarendra Bandopadhyay and Ors. 1996 (2) C.L.J.349 that it was the duty of the High Court to see that the order passed by the High Court is carried out by any means whatsoever otherwise a constitutional remedy- under Article 226 would become infructuous.

8. In my view, there is no bona fide reason or justification on the part of the authorities in not complying with the directions as contained in the order dated November 2, 1987 passed by S.R. Ray, J. in Civil Rule No. 6328 (W) of 1979. Their actions are illegal and invalid.

9. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The Superintendent of Police, District: 24-Parganas (South) is directed to see that the writ Petitioner is reinstated in service with all incidental benefits within a month from the date of communication of this order to him and that all arrears, as are admissible to the writ Petitioner from the date of his termination, that is, October 30, 1978 till the date of reinstatement are released within a month from the date of reinstatement of the Petitioner.

10. In view of the long pendency of the matter, the Superintendent of Police, District: 24-Parganas (South) is directed to see personally that this order is complied with in the time frame as indicated hereinabove.

11. Writ application is, thus, allowed of without, however, any order as to costs.

12. Let a Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Counsel for the parties on Usual undertaking.