THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CONTEMPT CASE NO.1198 OF 2023
ORDER
This Contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience and deliberate violation of the order of this Court dt.29.10.2022 in W.P.No.14662 of 2021 and seeking punishment for the same under the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not considering him for promotion to the post of Assistant Food Controller on the ground that disproportionate assets case is pending against him in FIR No.03/ACB-ADB/2017 dt.19.08.2017 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar even though no permission for prosecution has been granted by the Government nor were any departmental proceedings initiated against him as per CCA Rules and in not considering his case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration Department, dt.30.01.1991. This Court vide orders dt.29.10.2022 had directed the respondents to C.C.No.1198 of 2023 2 consider the case of the petitioner in this Writ Petition for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration Department, dt.30.01.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dt.10.06.1999 as and when promotion is next due to the petitioner and that the promotion so granted shall be subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner if the trial is concluded against the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondents have not passed any orders and the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the DPC meetings conducted on 13.05.2022 and 17.02.2023. Therefore, the present Contempt Case has been filed.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have appeared and submitted that as per the directions of this Court, the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioner and vide speaking order dt.19.07.2023, his request was rejected and therefore, the orders of this Court have been complied with. A copy of the same was also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Subsequently, counter affidavit has also been filed by the 1st respondent/1st contemnor along with the copy of the speaking order dt.19.07.2023. In the impugned order, it is C.C.No.1198 of 2023 3 stated that as per para-6 of G.O.Ms.No.257 dt.10.06.1999, if the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty, then the appointing authority should consider that it is not in public interest to consider ad hoc promotion to such charged officer and the allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature, involving moral turpitude and therefore, the request of the petitioner for promotion is not considered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this speaking order is not in the letter and spirit of the directions of this Court and therefore, it is in wilful disobedience of order of this Court. He submitted that this Court has considered and has observed that the Government has not granted permission for prosecution of the case of the petitioner and also that the disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the petitioner and therefore, a direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. It is submitted that the respondents have not taken any of the observations of the Court into consideration, but have summarily rejected the case of the petitioner, which is clear disobedience of the directions of this Court.
C.C.No.1198 of 2023 4
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the contemnors, however, submitted that the directions of this Court were to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD dt.30.01.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.257 GAD dt.10.06.1999 and the case has been considered in accordance therewith and a speaking order has been passed. It is submitted that they have utmost respect for orders of this Court and accordingly, the respondents have complied with the directions of this Court. In support of his contention, the learned Government Pleader has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and others 1. (2) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. A.K.Earth Movers and others 2. (3) M.V.Prasad Vs. Anil Kumar Singh 3. (4) Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others Vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and others 4.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that after observing that permission for prosecution has not been granted by the Government in respect of 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 2 (2017) 13 SCC 339 3 2023 (2) ALT 298 (S.B.) 4 (2008) 14 SCC 115 C.C.No.1198 of 2023 5 E.Bapuji, i.e., the petitioner herein and that G.O.Ms.Nos.66 and 257 would apply, in such circumstances, the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion. When such were the observations of this Court, the respondents ought to have taken the same into consideration while passing the speaking order. The respondents have not done so, but seem to have passed the speaking order as per their understanding of the directions of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited supra, has held that in contempt proceedings, further directions cannot be given. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others Vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and others (4 supra) has held that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding of an authority to whom direction is given and mere error of judgment with regard to legal position does not constitute contempt for the reason that there is no wilful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the Court order. Similar is the finding given in other judgments on which the learned Government Pleader for Services-II has placed reliance.
7. In view of the same, while expressing displeasure at the way the speaking order has been passed by the authorities, this Court is of the C.C.No.1198 of 2023 6 opinion that the petitioner would have to challenge the speaking order dt.19.07.2023 if aggrieved, and it cannot be treated as a case of wilful or deliberate contempt by the authorities under the Contempt of Courts Act.
8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.
9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Contempt Case shall also stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.09.2023 Svv