IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.719 of 2011 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 06.10.2010 in WP.No.8032 of 2008.) BETWEEN K.V. Anjaneyulu ... PETITIONER AND Mr. K. Ram Mohan Rao and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging disobedience to the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by this Court in WP.No.8032 of 2008. By way of the said order this Court, while setting aside the punishment imposed upon the petitioner under order dated 21.10.2005 confirmed in appeal under order dated 02.01.2008, left it open to the Repalle Cooperative Bank, Guntur District, to resume and continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from such stage as it deemed fit and in the event the bank chose to do so on the basis of the enquiry report already submitted, it was left open to the petitioner to assail the same, if necessary, on the grounds urged by him in the writ petition. 2. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the aforestated order the bank resumed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service under orders dated 12.02.2011 and 14.02.2011. The petitioner is said to have challenged the same before this Court in WP.No.9348 of 2011 which is pending consideration. The present contempt case is filed by the petitioner alleging that the spirit and tenor of this Court’s order dated 06.10.2010 in WP.No.8032 of 2008 has been blatantly violated by the respondents rendering them liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the punishment imposed under order dated 21.10.2005 was set aside by this Court, his client should be deemed to be in service entitling him to full salary for the period prior to his subsequent dismissal from service in February 2011. 4. It is however to be noticed that there was no direction in the order dated 06.10.2010 as to how the petitioner was to be treated pending the disciplinary proceedings by the bank, if it chose to resume them. There was also no direction as to any payments to be made to the petitioner pending such disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of such directions it is not open to the petitioner to read more into the said order and allege that there is willful disobedience by the respondents warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 28, 2011 DSK