THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No. 818 of 2010 O R D E R: This Contempt Case has been instituted by the petitioner complaining that the respondents have not acted bona fide and have not implemented the orders passed by this Court on 05.05.2010 in W.P.M.P.No. 13978 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 10942 of 2010. Pursuant to the notice issued in the above Contempt Case, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Visakhapatnam is present in the Court today. A counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit have been filed in the matter. It is no doubt pointed out that an inappropriate provision of the Regulations has been quoted while communicating the order to the writ petitioner, but however, my attention has been drawn to Regulation 3(c)(ii) of the A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations, which has been adopted by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. The said Regulation 3(c)(ii) makes it clear that the case of every employee shall be considered in their due turn for promotion and their names be included in the list of approved candidates at appropriate place after satisfying all other requirements. However importantly it is provided that the period of operation of the punishment if it is due to expire during the currency of the list of the approved candidates only their names should be included. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the currency of the list of approved candidates commences on 01.09.2010 to end on 31.08.2011. Therefore, the DPC has considered the case of the writ petitioner and also included his name at appropriate place. The recommendations of the DPC have been placed before the Board of Directors of the company, which approved them. However, the writ petitioner has been inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, vide proceedings dated 31.08.2009 of the Chairman and Managing Director which punishment order was subsequently confirmed by the appellate Board. Since the period of punishment is currently operative, the writ petitioner could not have been promoted, notwithstanding his inclusion in the approved list of candidates for promotion. In view of the rigor of Regulation 3(c)(ii) of the Service Regulations, it cannot be held that the respondents have deliberately and wantonly violated the orders passed by this Court. On the other hand, they have acted in accordance with Regulation 3(c)(ii). It is a settled principle of law that mentioning or quoting a wrong provision of law would not vitiate the validity of a proceeding, so long as the power is traceable to one provision of law or the other. In the instant case, power is traceable to Regulation 3(c)(ii) and hence, the order communicated to the writ petitioner that mentions a wrong provision, would not vitiate the said proceeding. In this view of the mater, I do not find the facts and circumstances warrant any further action be initiated or taken against the respondent contemnor. The notice issued is hence discharged. The Contempt Case is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 23rd December 2010 ksld