IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 25790 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director General of Police, AP., Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K.Ramachandran Hyderabad Range, Attached to Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate wirt order or direction calling for the records from the Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal, relating to order dated 5.11.2008 and allowing OA.No.7400 of 2008 filed by the Original applicant and the consequential order issued by the Hon`ble Tribunal in CA.No.715 of 2008 in OA.No.7400 of 2008 through which the petitioners herein are directed to be present before the Hon`ble Tribunal on 26.11.2008 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and pass + Counsel for the Petitioner:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25790 OF 2008 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) By their amended prayer, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, challenge the interim order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.7400 of 2008 and the consequential suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by the Tribunal vide order dated 05.11.2008 in C.A.No.715 of 2008 in O.A.No.7400 of 2008. The case has a long and chequered history. K.Ramachandran, the first respondent herein and the applicant in O.A.No.7400 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) was recruited as a Sub- Inspector of Police (Civil) in the year 1985. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1995. A criminal case was instituted against him in connection with his alleged disproportionate assets, under the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.37/ACB-CR/07. He was arrested on 14.11.2007, remanded to Judicial Custody on 15.11.2007 and was released on bail on 28.11.2007. He was placed under suspension by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, under proceedings dated 23.11.2007. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A. No.7837 of 2007 before the Tribunal wherein interim orders were passed on 19.12.2007 suspending the proceedings placing him under suspension pending further orders in the O.A. Thereupon, the suspension order was revoked vide proceedings dated 15.02.2008 and he was reinstated in service. In the meanwhile, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) (Dy.S.P.) by the Screening Committee which met on 29.12.2007, owing to his being under suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.1783 of 2008 claiming that he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. on par with his juniors in view of the revocation of the order of suspension passed against him and in the absence of a charge memo/charge sheet for initiating disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings. An interim order was passed therein on 07.03.2008 by the Tribunal stating to the effect that as the cloud against the applicant, i.e., the suspension, got erased and as no charge memo or charge sheet had been filed against him, he was entitled to be promoted on par with his juniors and the authorities were directed to consider his case accordingly, by completing the necessary exercise within a period of two weeks and issue consequential proceedings pending further orders in the O.A. The applicant moved M.A.No.1084 of 2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008 seeking a further direction to the authorities to conduct a Review D.P.C. for consideration of his case in accordance with the earlier order dated 07.03.2008 passed in the O.A. By order dated 29.04.2008, the Tribunal allowed the M.A. directing the authorities to conduct a Review D.P.C. for considering the applicant’s case for promotion as per its earlier order dated 07.03.2008. The applicant then approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.11032 of 2008 challenging the alleged inaction of the authorities in considering his case for promotion on par with his juniors. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.05.2008 observing that occasion had not arisen for the applicant to approach this Court as he was not dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal and could not approach this Court with an independent plea or prayer. While so, the authorities filed V.M.A. No.421 of 2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008 before the Tribunal seeking the vacating of the order dated 07.03.2008 and the applicant filed a contempt petition in C.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008 complaining of disobedience of the said order. The Tribunal passed final orders on 26.06.2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008, holding that the applicant was entitled to be considered for promotion on par with his juniors by conducting a Review Screening Committee and directed the authorities to conduct a Review Screening Committee by effecting promotion to the applicant on par with his juniors and issue necessary orders forthwith. Accordingly, the O.A. was allowed and the V.M.A. filed by the authorities was dismissed. Simultaneously, the Tribunal passed an independent order in C.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008 on 26.06.2008 directing personal appearance of the respondents in the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the authorities filed Writ Petition No.16018 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 26.06.2008 dismissing V.M.A.No.421 of 2008 and allowing O.A.No.1783 of 2008 and the consequential order dated 26.06.2008 in C.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.A.No.1783 of 2008. As this Court, by the interim order dated 24.07.2008, stayed the contempt proceedings and permitted the authorities to take an appropriate decision pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the case of the applicant was placed before the Review D.P.C. which was convened on 20.08.2008 and pursuant thereto, an order was passed on 01.09.2008 in Rc.No.498/G3/2008 recording that the Review Screening Committee had perused the records and examined the case; and did not recommend the applicant for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. This order was placed before this Court when Writ Petition No.16018 of 2008 came up for consideration on 02.09.2008 and this Court disposed of the Writ Petition observing as follows: “8. … In the meanwhile, the petitioners have placed the claim of the first respondent before the Review Screening Committee on 28-8-2006 (sic 20.8.2006) for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Committee rejected his case for promotion vide Memorandum dated 1-9-2008. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has not given positive direction to promote the first respondent as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the contempt proceedings do not survive and the contempt case deserves to be closed, especially when the order of the Tribunal has been complied with and Memo dated 1-9-2008 had been issued. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1783 of 2008. However, since the Memo dated 1-9-2008 was issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the first respondent is at liberty to challenge the Memo dated 1-9-2008 by filing a separate O.A. and avail such other remedies as are open to him in law before the appropriate Forum. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of thereby closing the contempt case before the Tribunal. No order as to costs.” In view of the said order, the Tribunal closed C.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.A. No.1783 of 2008 by its order dated 18.09.2008. The applicant then filed O.A. No.7400 of 2008 before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings dated 01.09.2008 rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. and sought a consequential direction to the authorities to promote him with all consequential benefits in view of the revocation of the suspension order passed against him and as no charge sheet had been filed against him in the disproportionate assets case. The matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18.09.2008 and 23.09.2008; and the authorities and more specifically, the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, was directed to produce the records relating to the Review D.P.C. pursuant to which the order dated 01.09.2008 in Rc.No.498/G3/2008 had been issued. The matter was taken up on 30.09.2008 by the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed orders stating as under: “2. … It is the case of the applicant that, in view of revocation of the suspension, no suspension is in force and as no charge sheet having been issued to the applicant in the case of disproportionate assets, no criminal case is pending against the applicant. The material papers taken by the Review Screening Committee for coming to such a conclusion that, the applicant is unfit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police are not traceable in the records. Therefore, it is clear that, the recommendation of the Screening Committee are illegal. These aspects have been clearly observed in the orders of this Tribunal dt.26.6.2008 in OA.No.1783/2008. The reasons for not considering the case of the applicant is given in Para-4 (counter therein) of the said order as extracted supra. Any how the matter will be considered in detail after filing of the counter in this matter. 3. Therefore, there is no scope for the review Screening Committee to come to a conclusion that his case was considered and found unfit without any material there being available. In view of the earlier declaration in the O.A.No.1783/2008 dt.26.6.2008 have been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and as the recommendations of the review Screening Committee are illegal, the impugned orders Rc.No.498/G3/2008 dt.1.9.2008 herein are suspended with a direction with the respondents to conduct review DPC in the light of the orders of this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court and consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with his juniors within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass necessary orders. 4. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks.” In consequence of the above order the case of the applicant was once again placed before the Review Screening Committee on 31.10.2008 which appears to have found him unfit for promotion, ostensibly on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government embodied in G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and Rule 74-2 of Volume 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. This was brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 05.11.2008 by placing before it the letter dated 31.10.2008 addressed by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the counsel. Thereupon, the Tribunal passed the order dated 05.11.2008 initiating suo moto contempt proceedings in suo moto Contempt Application No.715 of 2008 in O.A.No.7400 of 2008 stating as follows: “In view of the declaration given by this Tribunal in O.A.No.1783/2008, vide its Orders dated 26.6.2008, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.16018/2008, dated 7.2.2008 (sic 2.9.2008), the respondents are bound to follow the said Orders by taking the said directions into account, wherein a declaration has been given that the applicant is entitled to be promoted on par with his junior by conducting a Review Screening Committee. Instead of taking such directions of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1783/2008, dated 26.6.2008, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble high Court vide its Orders in W.P.No.16018/2008, dated 2.9.2008, the respondents have taken into account the instructions issued by the Government, which were already considered by this Tribunal while passing the Orders in O.A.No.1783/2008. Therefore, placing the instructions through the learned Government Pleader before this Court rejecting the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with his junior, amounts to disobedience of the Orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.1783/2008, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and also the interim orders passed by this Tribunal in present O.A. In view of the above, the registry is directed to initiate suo moto contempt against the second respondent and issue summons to the second respondent for personal appearance before this Court on 26.11.2008. Post this case on 26.11.2008.” The aforestated orders dated 30.09.2008 and 05.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal are under challenge before us. We have heard the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri M.Durga Prasad, counsel for the first respondent/applicant. The learned Advocate General contended that the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Tribunal was not sustainable in law as it was legally impermissible for the Tribunal to pass an order during the pendency of the O.A., directing the authorities to once again conduct a Review D.P.C. to consider the case of the applicant. All the more so, as the order dated 01.09.2008 which was the subject matter of challenge in O.A.No.7400 of 2008 had only been suspended and had not been set aside. He further contended that mere compliance with the order dated 30.09.2008 by holding a Review D.P.C. on 31.10.2008 did not estop the petitioners from challenging the validity of the said order. The learned Advocate General submitted that it was for the Review D.P.C. to consider the candidature of the applicant for promotion and on the basis of such consideration the Review D.P.C., being the constituted authority for the purpose, held that the applicant was not fit for promotion. He contended that such a decision on the part of the Review D.P.C., which was communicated by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide his letter dated 31.10.2008 to the counsel on record, cannot constitute wilful disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal warranting the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings. Per contra, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, submitted that the authorities, having complied with the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Tribunal, ought not to be allowed to turn back the clock and challenge the same. He contended that it was open to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the authorities had implemented the orders passed by it earlier in their true letter and spirit and the Tribunal, having found that the authorities had taken into account instructions issued by the Government, which had already been considered by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1783 of 2008, in rejecting the case of the applicant was well within its rights in initiating suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Though contentious arguments were advanced by both sides with regard to the propriety and validity of the rejection of the applicant’s case for promotion by the Review D.P.C., which was held on 31.10.2008, we are not inclined to go into the said issue. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction in passing the order dated 30.09.2008 directing the authorities to conduct a Review D.P.C. once again to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. It is relevant to note that pursuant to the orders dated 26.06.2008 in O.A. No.1783 of 2008, the authorities had considered the case of the applicant for promotion by placing the matter before the Review D.P.C. on 20.08.2008 and the rejection of his case for such promotion, as embodied in the proceedings dated 01.09.2008, was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in O.A. No.7400 of 2008. By its order dated 30.09.2008, the Tribunal had merely suspended the operation of the said proceedings dated 01.09.2008 and the matter was yet to be adjudicated on merits. This is clear from the observation made by the Tribunal itself in the said order: “Any how, the matter will be considered in detail after filing of the counter in this matter.” Without adjudicating the matter and without setting aside the proceedings dated 01.09.2008 challenged in the O.A., it was not open to the Tribunal to once again direct the authorities to convene a fresh Review D.P.C. to reconsider the case of the applicant. The said order had the effect of allowing the O.A. itself and rendered superfluous the issuance of notice to the respondents. Such an order was in excess of jurisdiction and hence, wholly impermissible and unsustainable. Though we would ordinarily be chary of interfering with the interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal, this is an eminently fit case warranting such intervention under our certiorari jurisdiction as the Tribunal has clearly acted in excess of jurisdiction and in disregard of the rules of procedure. Reference in this regard may be made to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to exercise of certiorari jurisdiction in SURYA DEV RAI V/s. RAM CHANDER RAI[1]. We do not find merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, that compliance by the authorities with this unsustainable order estopped the authorities from questioning it thereafter. Mere compliance with an order does not have the effect of vesting a legally unsustainable order with validity. It is always open to the aggrieved party to abide by a time-bound direction passed by a Court or Tribunal and thereafter question its propriety and validity. That is what the petitioners have done. We therefore reject the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, that the writ petition filed against the order dated 30.09.2008 is not maintainable as the authorities already complied with the said order. In view of our finding that the direction of the Tribunal by its order dated 30.09.2008 requiring the authorities to reconsider the case of the applicant for promotion, by convening a fresh Review D.P.C. was not proper and legal, the resultant consideration by the Review D.P.C. which was convened on 31.10.2008 is of no legal consequence. The order dated 01.09.2008 rejecting the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. has to be considered by the Tribunal on its own merits in the O.A. It is noticed that the authorities failed to file a counter in the O.A. in spite of the grant of four weeks time by the Tribunal by its order dated 30.09.2008. The authorities shall therefore file their counter expeditiously so as to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter on merits. Insofar as the suo moto contempt proceedings are concerned, the same do not survive in view of our finding supra, that the proceedings of the Review D.P.C. held on 31.10.2008 are of no legal consequence. However, as this aspect was also argued at length, we deem it appropriate to deal with it on merits. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that this was not a fit case for initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings inasmuch as there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, it is the case of the learned senior counsel, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, that it was open to the Tribunal to examine whether the authorities had implemented its earlier orders in their true letter and spirit and having found the same to be wanting, the order of the Tribunal initiating suo moto contempt could not be found fault with. It is also the case of the first respondent/applicant that the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the initiation of the suo moto contempt proceedings was not maintainable before this Court and the only remedy available to the petitioners was to approach the Supreme Court. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Reference may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in T.SUDHAKAR PRASAD V/s. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2], wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows: “… While holding the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal remains a Tribunal and so would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution subject to the well- established rules of self-restraint governing the discretion of the High Court to interfere with the pending proceedings and upset the interim or interlocutory orders of the Tribunals. However any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt shall be appealable only to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order appealed against in view of the specific provision contained in Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.” In the light of the above observation, it is manifest that this Court’s jurisdiction in the matter is not barred as long as a final order of punishment is not passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition is therefore maintainable against the initiation of the suo moto contempt proceedings by the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The facts of the case as narrated above would demonstrate that the Tribunal, having merely suspended the proceedings dated 01.09.2008, directed fresh consideration of the matter by convening a Review D.P.C. once again. This order was passed practically in execution of its earlier orders. It is relevant to note that exercise of contempt jurisdiction is intended for upholding the majesty of law and dignity of the judicial system as also of the Courts and Tribunals entrusted with the task of administering delivery of justice. (Vide T.SUDHAKAR PRASAD’s case (2 supra). As pointed out by P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J. in Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, Re V[3] frequent or indiscriminate use of this power, in anger or irritation, would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the Court. It would also be apposite to extract the observations of the Supreme Court in T.SUDHAKAR PRASAD’s case (2 supra) in this regard: “The proceedings for contempt of Court cannot be used merely for executing the decree of the Court. However, with a view to preserving the flow of the stream of justice in its unsullied form and in unstinted purity wilful defiance with the mandate of the Court is treated to be contemptuous.” Thus, what is required for invocation of contempt jurisdiction is wilful or deliberate defiance or disobedience of the order of the Court or Tribunal. We are inclined to accept the plea of the authorities that the rejection of the applicant’s case by the Review D.P.C. that was convened on 31.10.2008 in pursuance of the Tribunal’s interim order dated 30.09.2008 does not constitute ‘wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order’. We therefore hold that the action of the Tribunal in initiating suo moto contempt proceedings vide its order dated 05.11.2008 was not sustainable on facts or in law and accordingly set aside the said order. The Tribunal shall consider whether the rejection of the applicant’s case for promotion by the Review D.P.C. which was convened on 20.08.2008 resulting in the proceedings dated 01.09.2008 was in keeping with the earlier order passed by it in O.A. No.1783 of 2008, which attained finality in the light of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 02.09.2008 in W.P.No.16018 of 2008. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the orders dated 30.09.2008 in O.A. No.7400 of 2008 and the order dated 05.11.2008 in C.A.No.285 of 2008 in O.A. No.7400 of 2008 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall adjudicate the validity of the proceedings dated 01.09.2008 rejecting the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. on its own merits expeditiously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. ____13th FEBRUARY, 2009. VGSR/PGS/KK [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044 [2] (2001) 1 SCC 516 [3] AIR 1965 SC 745