THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.393 OF 2010 DATED: 21.04.2010 Between: V. Amarender … Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad., And 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.393 OF 2010 ORDER : This Contempt Case is filed to punish the 3rd respondent herein alleging that he had wilfully and deliberately violated the order of this Court, dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.30963 of 2009 in W.P.No.23831 of 2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. In W.P.No.23831 of 2009, a declaration was sought by the petitioner that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent - Commissioner of Endowments, dated 20.04.2009, holding that the petitioner cannot be absorbed in the regular post of Assistant Engineer in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam as well as subsequent order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 26.10.2009 discontinuing the services of the petitioner as daily-wage employee are arbitrary and illegal. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought interim suspension of the above said orders apart from a direction to the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner as Assistant Engineer. The order dated 31.12.2009 was passed in the said miscellaneous petitions after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in his counter- affidavit. Though this Court declined to suspend the 2nd respondent’s order dated 20.04.2009, so far as the order of the 3rd respondent dated 26.10.2009 was concerned, this Court, having opined that the same was in violation of principles of the natural justice, granted interim suspension. However, it was made clear that the said order shall not preclude the respondents to pass appropriate orders afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation as to the alleged unauthorized absence from 13.5.2009. It is alleged in this contempt case that the said order dated 31.12.2009 was communicated to the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2010 with a request to continue the petitioner in service. It is stated that though a further representation dated 22.01.2010 was made, the 3rd respondent failed to implement the order of this Court and did not allow the petitioner to continue in service. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner was not attending duty from 13.05.2009 onwards and in compliance with the order of this Court a show-cause notice dated 15.03.2010 was issued to the petitioner and the same was sent on 16.03.2010 through Special Messenger. However, the petitioner refused to receive the said notice and therefore the same was again sent by registered post on 17.03.2010. Having received the said notice on 22.03.2010, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting extension of time by 15 days to submit his explanation. As requested by him, the time was extended and ultimately the petitioner submitted his explanation on 15.04.2010. After considering the said explanation, on 17.04.2010 an order was passed by the 3rd respondent stating that it was not possible to engage the services of the petitioner in the Engineering wing of the temple as there was no civil work of temporary nature. In view of the said order dated 17.4.2010, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner’s allegation that the 3rd respondent had wilfully and deliberately violated the order of this Court is factually incorrect and without any basis. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the show- cause notice, dated 15.03.2010, followed by a final order, dated 17.04.2010, without reinstating the petitioner into service is contemptuous and therefore the 3rd respondent is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is to be noticed that admittedly the petitioner was working only as a daily-wage employee and under the 3rd respondent’s proceedings dated 26.10.2009 he was asked not to report to duty on the ground that he was absent from 13.05.2009 onwards. It is true that the said order dated 26.10.2009 was suspended by this Court in W.PM.P.No.30963 of 2009 on the ground that it was in violation of principles of natural justice. However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner’s further request in W.P.M.P.No.30964 of 2009 to direct the 3rd respondent to continue him in service was not granted by this Court. Except the interim suspension of the 3rd respondent’s order, dated 26.10.20009, there was no positive direction as such to continue the petitioner in service. In the absence of any specific direction to continue the petitioner, who was admittedly working as a daily wage employee, and keeping in view the 3rd respondent’s plea that the petitioner was not attending to the duty from 13.05.2009, the action of the 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to duty before issuing the show-cause notice dated 15.03.2010 cannot be held to be contemptuous. Admittedly as on today a final order has been passed after issuing due notice to the petitioner and after considering his explanation. The contention of the petitioner that it was not open to the 3rd respondent to issue the show-cause notice and pass final order thereupon without allowing the petitioner to join the duty, runs beyond the scope of the order passed by this Court. Hence, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.04.2010 gbs