THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No. 898 OF 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner, who moved this Contempt Case, is only trying to evade and avoid facing an otherwise inconvenient enquiry pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Writ Petition No. 1078 of 2011 has been instituted by the petitioner, virtually seeking an injunction to refrain the 5th respondent Assistant General Manager and disciplinary authority from completing the disciplinary proceedings. The grievance nurtured at that stage was that certain documents called for by him have not been furnished by the respondent bank’s officials. Therefore, an order was passed on 07.03.2011 directing the respondents to immediately supply copies of 1) inspection report of the branch for the year 2008-09 pertaining to Cash Department; and 2) rectification report submitted by the branch. Pursuant to this order, the respondent bank on 18.03.2011 furnished to him two reports: 1) copy of the surprise verification report conducted by Sri P.V. Prasada Rao; 2) copy of the compliance report by Kodangal Branch. The writ petitioner was taking advantage of the technical description of the 1st item supplied by the bank through their communication dated 18.03.2011, referred to supra, inasmuch as it was indicated to be surprise verification report, whereas he is said to have asked for inspection report of the branch. If one has looked at the two reports, which have been enclosed to the communication dated 18.03.2011 of the bank, it becomes crystal clear that what has been furnished to the petitioner is the inspection report of Sri P.V. Prasada Rao of the Cash Department of Kodangal Branch, followed up by the reply furnished by the branch, pointing out the rectification/compliance carried out by the branch. The writ petitioner has again indulged in an otherwise interminable correspondence pointing out that as against the inspection report sought for by him, he was only furnished a copy of the surprise verification report. Noticing the untenable attitude of the petitioner herein, the bank has once again, through their communication dated 15.04.2011, have informed him that what has been supplied to him on 18.03.2011 is, in fact, the copy of the inspection report of Kodangal branch for the year 2008-09 pertaining to the Cash Department and the rectification report submitted by the said branch, however, the bank has played safe by making available the special report submitted by the inspecting official Mr. P.V. Prasada Rao. Though the said special report has not been asked for by the petitioner, a copy of the said special report filed by Sri P.V. Prasada Rao, who inspected the said branch, was made available to him. A counter-affidavit was filed in this Contempt Case, sworn to by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank. In paragraph 3, it is specifically asserted that the two documents, which this Court directed by its order dated 07.03.2011, have, in fact, been made available and supplied to the writ petitioner immediately on 18.03.2011 itself and above that, the special report of the inspecting official Sri P.V. Prasada Rao has also been made available to the petitioner by the communication dated 15.04.2011 of the bank. I am therefore, convinced that this contempt of Court action has been initiated only with a view to gain time and it lacks bona fides. In all other circumstances, I would have taken a serious note of this improper conduct of the petitioner, but however, taking extremely compassionate view of the matter, I decline to award costs against him. The contempt of Court action is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th August 2011 ksld