IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.1314 of 2009 Between: M.Vidyasagar … Petitioner and Mr.Mohd. Ali Rafath, I.A.S., … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.1314 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondent under Section 10 and 12 of the Courts of Contempt Act, 1971 for his willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 24.06.2009 passed in W.P. No.24215 of 2008. The petitioner is an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He was on deputation to the 1st respondent, Rajiv Vidhya Mission, Government of Andhra Pradesh. On the ground that he was involved in a disciplinary case, he was placed under suspension by Proceedngs No.350/FC/SSA/2007 dated 12.04.2007, issued by the 1st respondent. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P. No.24215 of 2008 and along with the said writ petition he also filed W.P.M.P. No.31559 of 2008 seeking to suspend the impugned suspension proceedings dated 12.04.2007. Initially, this Court granted interim suspension on 06.11.2008 of the impugned proceedings dated 12.04.2007 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending enquiry. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed W.V.M.P. No.4123 of 2008 seeking to vacate the interim direction dated 06.11.2008 and having heard both sides, this Court vacated the interim direction passed by this Court on 06.11.2008 by order dated 06.02.2009 holding that “Accordingly, the vacate stay petition is allowed and the interim order granted on 06.11.2008 stands vacated. However, it is made clear that in case the departmental enquiry is not completed within a period of two years from the date of suspension, the writ petitioner is at liberty to renew his request for interim order.” As the enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. M.P. No.14392 of 2009 to renew the interim orders by suspending the proceedings dated 12.04.2007. When the said M.P. came up for hearing, the W.P. No.24215 of 2008 itself was disposed of by order dated 24.06.2009 holding that “Now as the enquiry is over and enquiry report is sent to the disciplinary authority, the respondent shall see that any action either way be taken within a period of four weeks from today. If for any reason, no orders are passed within the stipulated period, the respondent shall revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner into service.” Since the said order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent has to see that the final orders be passed within the stipulated time but as no final orders could be passed, from any of the authority, therefore, he is entitled to be reinstated into service by revoking the suspension order passed by the 1st respondent. As he could not do the same, therefore, the order passed by this Court is willfully and deliberately disobeyed by the 1st respondent. He also submitted that the 1st respondent neither acted as per the direction given by this Court, nor he filed any application before this Court seeking for extension of time for passing final orders. He also submits that the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts, also filed a counter stating that the departmental proceedings, which were pursued with by the 1st respondent, till recent past, has been transferred to the proposed 2nd respondent followed by repatriation of the petitioner, by that time, the orders dated 06.11.2008 of this Court were passed against the 1st respondent and there was lot of action pending in the disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, based on the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit, submits that the 1st respondent is the barrowing authority and the proposed 2nd respondent is the lending authority. The petitioner was on deputation to the 1st respondent and on the ground of his involvement in disciplinary case in connection with which, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the 1st respondent to take the necessary action within the period of four weeks. Therefore, immediately, after receipt of the order passed by this Court, the 1st respondent immediately wrote a letter to the proposed 2nd respondent on 26.06.2009 requesting him to take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner, the then Accounts Officer, under suspension, within the time limit of four weeks, as ordered by this Court, as the proposed 2nd respondent alone is the competent authority for taking necessary action and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Government. Ultimately, after consideration of the matter by the Government, as per the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.480, General Administration Department dated 07.09.1993, the necessary action has been taken in the matter. In that process, there is delay on the part of the 1st respondent in taking the action because he was not the competent authority to take final action in the matter. Ultimately, he addressed the proposed 2nd respondent for taking final action, as he is the competent authority. Therefore, he submits that explaining the reasons for which the 1st respondent could not take the action in time, for which, he tendered unconditional apology. Therefore, he submits that there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit. Appearing for the proposed 2nd respondent, the learned Government Pleader would submit that since the petitioner was on deputation with the 1st respondent and the proposed 2nd respondent was not a party to the writ petition and after filing the contempt case, based on the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No.298 of 2010, seeking for impleadment of the proposed 2nd respondent in the contempt proceedings, through which, the proposed 2nd respondent noticed about the pendency of the contempt case. Immediately, the proposed 2nd respondent perused the matter and ultimately issued the proceedings dated 16.04.2011, imposing the punishment on the petitioner retiring him compulsorily, from the service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority on 03.06.2011. Therefore, there is no willful disobedience on the part of the proposed 2nd respondent. In view of the fact that since the proposed 2nd respondent noticed the order passed by this Court, including that of the pendency of the contempt case, necessary action has been taken by issuing the proceedings dated 16.04.2011. Therefore, he submits that the contempt case may be dismissed. The point that arises for consideration is that whether the 1st respondent and the proposed 2nd respondent are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Courts of Contempt Act. The petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 12.04.2007 and the said proceedings were issued by the sole respondent in the writ petition. W.P. No.24215 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner making the Rajiv Vidhya Mission, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its State Project Director, as sole respondent. The petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.31559 of 2008 seeking suspension of the impugned proceedings, which was suspended finally by this Court on 06.11.2008. On filing the vacate petition being W.V.M.P. No.4123 of 2008 by the sole respondent in the writ petition, the interim suspension passed earlier was vacated by order dated 06.02.2009. Further it was held that in case the departmental enquiry was not completed within two years, from the date of suspension, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his request for interim order. In view of the fact that within the time stipulated, the enquiry was not completed, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. seeking revocation of the suspension of the order and ultimately by order dated 24.06.2009 the writ petition was disposed of holding that the respondent shall see that any action either way be taken within four weeks, from the date of the order. If for any reason, the order passed by this Court is not implemented, within the stipulated time, the respondent shall revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner into service. The contempt case is filed by the petitioner stating that this Court disposed of the writ petition No.24215 of 2008 with a direction to the sole respondent in the writ petition to take any action either way, within four weeks, from the date of passing of the order and if for any reason, no orders are passed, within the time stipulated, directed the respondent to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner into service and also directed the respondent to pay substantial allowances at the rate of 75% from 12.07.2007. It is also stated that as there was a typographical mistake in the order dated 24.06.2009 that any action either way be taken within a period of four months instead of four weeks, therefore, he filed W.P.M.P. to correct the same. Accordingly, the same was corrected and also extended the time granting further more time of three weeks from 23.07.2009 to pass appropriate orders. Even after expiry of the three weeks period granted by this Court from 23.07.2009, the respondent did not pass any orders. Therefore, the said action is willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the respondents are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Courts of Contempt Act. This Court issued Notice before admission on 23.09.2009. Counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent and having not satisfied with the said counter, on 09.12.2009 this Court directed to issue Form-1 notice directing the contemnor to appear before this Court on 28.12.2009. Thereafter, the contempt case was underwent several adjournments. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit, filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed C.A. No.298 of 2009 seeking for impleadment of the proposed 2nd respondent i.e. the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. In the Counter affidavit, filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the suspension of the petitioner has been reviewed by the Government in Education (PE.Vig.I) Department and passed orders in Memo. No.15116 (PE.Vig.I) Department dated 23.09.2009 for continuation of the suspension of the petitioner for a further period of six months w.e.f. 11.04.2009 and the subsistence allowance restricted to 50% as per Fundamental Rule 53. On behalf of the proposed 2nd respondent, detailed counter has been filed. In fact, it appears that the application filed by the petitioner in C.A.No.298 of 2010 is not ordered as could be seen from the docket proceedings. But however, the counter affidavit has been filed by the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts of A.P., stating that he was neither the party to the writ petition nor to the contempt case. Further, it is submitted that the 1st respondent has repatriated the petitioner in deviation of the procedures, compelling the lending department to examine the entire issue afresh with reference to the likely ramification of the reinstatement of the individual and its related issues. It is specifically submitted that till the time of receipt of the inquiry report, he was not having full details of the fraud and the mischief of petitioner. There is a charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad vide C.C. No.524 of 2008. In these circumstances, the lending department has to take a fresh look into all the related issues of disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings and in the mater of suspension of the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted the above said review proposals to the Government. Ultimately, the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts, issued the proceedings dated 16.04.2011 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Overall circumstances in the instant case is that the 1st respondent in the contempt case happened to be the borrowing authority and can place the petitioner under suspension and rest of the disciplinary proceedings will have to be held by the lending authority. Since the order passed by this Court is received by the 1st respondent, he addressed to the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts, for taking further necessary action and in turn, the matter was reported to the Government and the Government also issued a memo for taking necessary action by keeping the petitioner under suspension and the 1st respondent pleaded ignorance of the various procedures and expressed unconditional apology for the delay on his part in taking appropriate action in time as directed by this Court. But ultimately the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts, issued proceedings dated 16.04.2011, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances explained by the Project Director i.e. 1st respondent in his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit and also taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the proposed 2nd respondent, Director of Treasuries and Accounts, and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also for the learned Government Pleader appearing for the sole respondent in the contempt case as well as the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, I am of the view that in the instant case it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 25.08.2011 LSK