THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.156 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 alleging that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court dated 07-06-2010 passed in W.P. No.3019 of 2010. 2. The petitioner was in service of Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited. When disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing Memo No.Se/DPE/VSP/F.DOC.F.No. /09, D.No.02/09, dated 02-02-2009, he approached this Court and filed W.P. No.3019 of 2010. During the pendency of the writ petition, when it was brought to the notice of this Court that final orders were passed in the disciplinary proceedings by imposing punishment of recovery of the amount equivalent to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect from his terminal benefits, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to release the remaining benefits by implementing the Memo No.HRD/DC/PO- III/F.No.738/08/D.No.181/10 dated 30-04-2010 and also giving liberty to the petitioner to question the said memo. 3. Now it is the case of the petitioner that apart from recovery of the amount equivalent to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, respondents have withheld one more increment without any authority of law and not released such increment contrary to the orders of this Court dated 07-06-2010 in W.P. No.3019 of 2010. 4. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents that initially there was some mistake in implementing the memo dated 30-04-2010, but subsequently revised proceedings were issued releasing the increment that was withheld by mistake. 5. In view of the revised proceedings issued by the respondents and also the explanation offered by them in the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that it is a willful and deliberate action on the part of the respondents so as to proceed further against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some more arrears are also payable to the petitioner in view of the release of increment, which was withheld, as per the revised proceedings. If that is the case of the petitioner, it is open to him to make a representation giving details of the amounts that are payable to him and if any such representation is filed, I am sure that the respondents will consider the same and communicate a decision to the petitioner as expeditious as possible. 7. As much as, the respondents have issued the revised proceedings, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to proceed further against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed subject to the observations as above. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 8, 2011. PV