The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Battu Devanand while taking a very strong exception to the government servants reprehensible habit of not complying time and again with judicial orders, in a Contempt Case sentenced 3 IAS officers to one month jail for contempt of court while observing that it is incumbent on government servants to ensure that the orders of this Court are complied with promptitude. (NMS Goud v. Punam Malakondaiah & Ors)
Facts Of the case
The Contempt Case was filed seeking to punish the respondents for violation of the orders, dated 22.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.15797 of 2019.
The petitioner filed writ petition praying to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not selecting the petitioner as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) in pursuance of Notification 1/2019 dated 26.07.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further to declare that the petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) as per his merit.
This Court, by order, dated 22.10.2019, directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Village Agriculture Assistant and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Complaining about the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed this Contempt Case.
Contention of the Parties
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receipt of the orders of the Court, the petitioner made representation to the respondents in January, 2020 requesting to implement the orders of the Court by passing appropriate orders. But, the respondents did not choose to implement the orders of this Court and having fully, deliberately, wantonly violated the orders of the Court, and as such, they are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
The 1st respondent submitted that based on the orders passed by this Court, the Special Commissioner of Agriculture has been requested to take immediate further necessary action in the matter, as per rules in vogue vide Government Memo No.AGC01- AGRI/335/2019-AGRI-IV, dated 27.11.2019.
The 1st respondent further submitted that upon verification of the certificates, the verification Board has rejected the candidature of the petitioner as “INELIGIBLE” on the ground of the candidate has obtained B.Sc (Ag.) from Sri Bhimarao Ambedkar University, AGRA which is not accredited by “Indian Council of Agricultural Research” (ICAR), which is mandatory as per the Educational Qualifications Notification.
The 1st respondent finally submitted that as per corrigendum to Notification issued by the O/o. the Commissioner of Agriculture, AP, Guntur, serving MPEOs with B.Sc (Ag.) Degree from Non-ICAR Recognized/ Accredited Universities is also eligible to apply as a one-time exemption for having worked as MPEO in the Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh. But, there is no provision to serving BTMs. In the present case, the petitioner has been working as Block Technology Manager (BTM), which is not mentioned in corrigendum issued, as the petitioner is not in the category of serving MPEOs, who are exempted for one time and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected as “INELIGIBLE” for selection on the grounds that B.Sc(Ag.) from Non-ICAR Recognized/Accredited University, but not “Serving MPEO” in the Department of Agriculture.
The 2nd respondent further submitted that the 3rd respondent i.e., DSC Chairman is competent authority to attend the grievances of the petitioner in pursuant to the orders of this Court. Therefore, he submitted that this respondent has no deliberate/willful intention to violate the Court orders. Therefore, he prays to close the contempt case against him.
The 3rd respondent submitted that due to lack of knowledge on the part of the Ministerial staff of the Office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, follow up actions, no speaking orders were issued to the petitioner, as this was the first Writ Petition filed in respect of recruitment of Village Agriculture Assistant in Kurnool District for the next 3 months i.e., from December, 2019 to February, 2020. He further submitted that the Department of Agriculture had not dealt any direct recruitment like this through DSC, which is also one of the reasons for lack of knowledge and efficacy in discharging duties like recruitment as the Ministerial staff are also deficient in recruitment, legal provisions and follow up actions required to be taken up on timely, the staff has not taken any steps to obtain information for further communication of action for implementation of Court orders due to lack of legal knowledge.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset taking note of the facts of the case remarked, "After considering the facts mentioned above, it appears that after issuing instructions on 27.09.2019 to the 2nd respondent, no further steps are taken by the 1st respondent to implement the order. The 2nd respondent also did not take any steps or issue any instructions to the 3rd respondent to take steps to implement the order of the Court. The 3rd respondent also issued a speaking order only on 02.12.2020 after filing the contempt case (i.e.) beyond the time stipulated by the Court in its order, dated 22.10.2019. As such, in our considered opinion, the Respondents disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 22.10.2019 to implement in true spirit."
The bench noted, "The affidavits of the respondents are silent as to why they could not file a petition before this Court seeking extension of time to comply with the Order of this Court. Having chosen not to seek extension, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that despite a direction to comply with the Order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, they are justified in complying with the order at their convenience, without adhering to the time limit imposed by this Court. The Order of this Court has been violated to the extent this Court directed compliance of its order within two weeks."
The bench allowing the Contempt case remarked, "On being asked as to what was the appropriate punishment, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, since the delay was unintentional, this Court should refrain from imposing any punishment on a senior Officers of the Government.
I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent upon the respondents, more particularly, those who are holding senior position in Government, to ensure that the Orders of this Court are complied with promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance. Any difficulty which they may have in complying with the order of this Court would require them to invoke this Court jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply with the orders. Admittedly, in the present case, no such efforts were made by the respondents.
While holding the respondents are guilty of Contempt, and for having violated the orders of the Court to the extent they failed to comply with the order of this Court within the time specified, they are liable for punishment under the Contempt of Court Act."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
