HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.846 of 2010 Dated: 20-07-2010 Between: Nakka Nagaiah. … Petitioner And R.V.Rajaram, Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Department (HR), Andhra Bank, Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.846 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha. The petitioner was working as a Sub-Manager in the category of MM-II, in Andhra Bank. His services were terminated by an order, dated 26.05.2010, on the ground that he secured employment in the reserved category though he does not belong to it. Based on the order of cancellation of caste certificate, the services of petitioner were terminated. When the said order is questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P.No.12418 of 2010 on the ground that his services were terminated without conducting any inquiry, this Court, by interim orders, dated 4th of June 2010, suspended the order of termination and issued directions to continue the petitioner in service. In the same order, it is further observed that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner in securing employment, the said order will not preclude the respondents from initiating disciplinary action and take steps in accordance with law. In this contempt case, it is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of the suspension of the termination order and direction to continue him in service, respondent-bank has not complied with the said directions. When the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent has produced the letter, dated 14.07.2010, in Lr.No.666/3/L/346, as per which, the petitioner was reinstated into service of the respondent-bank and it is also stated that such reinstatement takes effect from the date of petitioner reporting to duty. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that there was a delay on the part of respondent, as therefore, he is entitled for salary from the date of order passed by this Court, the same is to be determined at the time of disposal of the writ petition. In view of reinstatement of petitioner by Lr.No.666/3/L/346, dated 14.07.2010, it cannot be said that the respondent has willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court. It is also to be noticed that the vacate petition filed by the respondent-bank is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, in view of the reinstatement letter, dated 14.07.2010, which is already issued to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately violated the orders of this Court. The contempt case is accordingly closed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th July 2010 ajr