As per case facts, a revenue officer (appellant) forcefully evicted home dwellers from land they claimed possession of, demolishing their structures, despite explicit court orders and warnings from the High ... Court not to disturb their possession. Two contempt petitions were filed, and the High Court found the officer guilty of willful disobedience, sentencing him to two months of simple imprisonment and a fine. The officer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was acting in good faith to protect government land during a volatile time and that imprisonment would lead to his dismissal from service, negatively affecting his family. The question arose whether the High Court's conviction and sentence for contempt should be maintained, given the officer's adamant and callous actions, versus the potential career and family repercussions. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, acknowledging the officer's "inhumane" and "adamant and callous conduct." The Court chose leniency not for the officer's sake, but so his innocent family would not suffer. The original sentence was substituted with the following: (i) conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is confirmed; (ii) the officer is to be reverted to the lower rank of Tehsildar, with his seniority in that cadre for future promotions to be counted only from the date of his previous promotion; and (iii) he must pay a heavy fine, to be deposited under a government housing scheme. The Court stressed that the modified sentence was to send a clear message that no one is above the law