Bhupani Venkata Naidu vs Sri V. Kiran Kumar,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3122 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 CONTEMPT CASE NO.841 OF 2021
                              IN
                 WRIT PETITION NO.3930 OF 2021

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner - Bhupani

Venkata Naidu against one V. Kiran Kumar, Deputy Inspector

General of Registration and Stamps.

It is alleged that this Court issued a direction and passed

final order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, which reads

as follows:

"....the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount on encashment of Earned Leave available to his credit along with 80% retirement gratuity and the respondents are directed to release the amount payable on encashment of Earned Leave to the credit of the petitioner‟s leave account and also pay 80% retirement gratuity, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

After passing final order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated

18.02.2021, the petitioner made a representation requesting for

sanction of Earned Leave Encashment for 300 days and also

gratuity on 06.04.2021. But, for the reasons best known to the

respondent/contemnor, no action was taken and the order was not

implemented, thereby, there was inaction of the respondents in not

implementing the order of this Court is not only disobedience and

disrespect to the orders of this Court, but also frustrating the

cause of justice. Therefore, the respondents have deliberately and

wilfully flouted the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

dated 18.02.2021 and thus committed contempt. Therefore, action

of the respondent/contemnor attracts contempt and requested to

punish the contemnor in accordance with law.

The respondent/contemnor/V. Kiran Kumar, Deputy

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps filed counter

affidavit denying material allegations, while admitting about

passing an order by this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated

18.02.2021.

The events that lead to filing of writ petition by the petitioner

are that, the petitioner was trapped by officials of Anti Corruption

Bureau while he was working as Sub-Registrar Grade-II at Sub-

Registrar Office, Adoni, Kurnool District on 17.06.2010 when he

demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from the

complainant Sri L. Venugopal Reddy, r/o Chinnagonehali village,

Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner was suspended

from service with immediate effect in the interest of public, as he

involved in a case of moral turpitude, by proceedings of Deputy

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide

Proc.No.A/1040/2010 dated 19.06.2010. Later, he was reinstated

into service as per the decision of the Government vide

Proc.No.A/1040/2010 dated 26.01.2013 of the Deputy Inspector

General of Registration and Stamps.

The Government has accepted the recommendations of

Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau and accorded sanction

to prosecute the petitioner who was Accused Officer-1 in the trap

case besides initiating departmental enquiry for the irregularities

committed by him as noticed by the Anti Corruption Bureau MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

authorities. The respondent/contemnor also narrated various

incidents about final reinstatement, imposing penalty,

punishment, departmental enquiry, wherein, the suspension

period has to be treated as „Non-duty‟. Accordingly, Government

Memo No.31131/Vig.II(2)/2010-20 Revenue (Vigilance.II)

Department dated 15.01.2019 has rejected the representation of

the petitioner to treat the suspension period as on „Duty‟. Criminal

appeal is also pending before the High Court against the judgment

of Trial Court in Calendar Case No.87 of 2013 dated 02.01.2015,

which is filed by the State, the petitioner was found not guilty.

Thus, the petitioner was acquitted finding him not guilty for the

charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, but, punishment was

imposed in the departmental proceedings for the suspension

period, treating the period as „Not on duty‟.

The respondent/contemnor urged for dismissal of the

contempt case on the sole ground that, the contemnor who is

Respondent No.3 in the writ petition is solely arrayed as

respondent in the present contempt case and since the respondent

herein is not the only competent authority to pay retirement

gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioner, but

required necessary orders from the Government. With due respect

and being controlling authority, the respondent immediately took

steps for implementation of orders of this Court by addressing a

letter to the Government vide Lr.No.PN/1325/2015 dated

29.04.2021. In the said letter, the respondent specifically cited the

orders of this Court and referred the representation of this MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

petitioner. On this ground, the contempt case is sought to be

dismissed.

The respondent/contemnor contended that the petitioner

intentionally and wilfully filed a contempt case against the

respondent alone, though Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 are parties to

the writ petition and Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 are also competent

to accord permission and release the above stated amounts as

claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that, the legal hurdle

in this case is that, Government of Andhra Pradesh rejected the

request of petitioner with regard to regularization of suspension

period as „On Duty‟ vide Memo No.31131/Vig.II(2)/2010-2020

Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 15.01.2019. Against the

said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5093 of 2021 and this

Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of

the petitioner with regard to regularization of suspension period.

As long as consideration of the request for payment of Retirement

Gratuity is pending, Encashment of Earned Leave in finalizing the

earned leave account to the credit of petitioner and further fixing

the retiremental benefits to the petitioner will be in conflict.

The respondent mainly contended that, on examination of

the representation of the petitioner, records available and as per

rule position, a speaking order was passed by the Deputy Inspector

General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool vide Proceedings

No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021, informing that a letter has

been addressed to the Government with regard to issue of

instructions on regularization of suspension period basing on the

orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5093 of 2021 dated MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

30.03.2021 and instructions are awaited from the Government for

release of gratuity. The respondent also narrated several facts with

regard to No Due Certificate particulars called for from the

respective District Registrars and Deputy Inspectors General while

the petitioner was in service vide office Memo No.PN/1352/2015

dated 02.06.2016 and subsequent reminders. The District

Registrar, Kurnool vide Lr.No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021

submitted No Due Certificate report of Kurnool District that there

is an amount of Rs.58,10,666/- to be recovered from the

petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and

Stamps, Anantapuramu vide Lr.No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021

furnished consolidated No Due Certificate report from

Anantapuram District that there is an amount of Rs.31,41,395/-

to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner caused loss to

the Government while the petitioner worked as Sub-Registrar at

Tadipatri, Adoni and Pathikonda which were detected during

Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General‟s Local Audit

Reports. The consolidated No Due Certificate amount is

Rs.89,52,061/-. Further, it is contended that, the Principal

Accountant General (A&E) Pension Verification Report authorized

for release of Rs.9,27,251/- as Retirement Gratuity and No Due

Certificate amount of Rs.89,52,061/- is to be recovered from the

petitioner. Hence, as per law, at this juncture, the petitioner is not

in the zone of consideration for release of Retirement Gratuity and

Encashment of Earned Leave, until the loss to Government is

realized either from the petitioner or from the parties who have

registered documents.

MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

Finally, it is contended that, the contemnor took appropriate

action during his tenure, which could not be concluded on account

of hurdles referred above and requested to dismiss the contempt

case, on this ground also.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that, the respondent herein/contemnor has violated the order

passed by this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021

and he is the person who has to implement the order passed by

this Court. Despite representation made by this petitioner, after

passing order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the

respondent/contemnor did not take any action and requested to

punish the respondent by conducting summary enquiry in

accordance with law under the provisions of Contempt of Courts

Act.

Whereas, Sri Aswartha Narayana, learned Government

Pleader for Services-I contended that, the respondent alone is not

the person who has to implement the order of this Court, but

Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 in the writ petition are also responsible

for implementation of the order and therefore, in their absence,

contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Besides that, an amount of

Rs.89,52,061/- is to be recovered from the petitioner in view of

Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General‟s Local Audit

Reports, whereas, the Gratuity payable to this petitioner is

Rs.9,27,251/-. In these circumstances, question of payment of

Gratuity to this petitioner is not possible and finally requested to

dismiss the contempt case.

MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

According to the contention of the petitioner, the respondent

alone is the competent person to release the retirement gratuity,

whereas, the respondent contention is that, the State and

Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 are responsible for implementation of the

orders of this Court and process of payment.

No doubt, the respondent/contemnor is the authority who

has to take action on the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021. But, there is a long

process for release of Gratuity and Leave Encashment amount to

this petitioner, as directed by this Court. The contemnor not only

implemented the order passed by this Court, but also protected the

revenue of the State. Though the respondent is the person

competent to implement the order of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of

2021 dated 18.02.2021, on account of hurdles in view of Internal

Audit Reports and Accountant General‟s Local Audit Reports

regarding recovery of Rs.89,52,061/- either from the petitioner or

from the parties who have registered documents, , who caused loss

to the State exchequer, leave enacashment and gratuity and

amount could not be released to this petitioner. The contention of

the respondent that, respondent himself is alone not responsible

for implementation of the order is not supported by any material

and therefore, the contention of this petitioner that the respondent

failed to implement the order is to be accepted. But, mere failure to

implement the order of this Court is not sufficient to punish the

contemnor. Unless the Court concludes that disobedience is wilful

and intentional, the respondent is not liable for punishment under

the Contempt of Courts Act. Here, after passing the order in MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the contemnor took steps

to implement the order and issued Proceedings in

Lr.No.PN/1325/2015 dated 29.04.2021, marking a copy to the

petitioner, informing as follows:

"The original order copy is not received in this office till date. The directions were passed to the Respondents to release the amount payable on encashment of Earned Leave to the credit of the petitioner's leave account and also pay 80% retirement gratuity, in accordance with law, without four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

But, due to non-receipt of copy order from this Court, the

request of the petitioner could not be examined and informed that

action will be taken after receipt of original order from this Court.

Thereafter, Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021 were

issued by the respondent, rejecting the request of this petitioner to

sanction Encashment of Earned Leave available to his credit on his

retirement and also sanction of 80% of Retirement Gratuity, until

the instructions are issued from the Government with regard to

Retirement Gratuity and regularization of suspension period in

pursuance of W.P.No.5093 of 2021. Thereafter, Deputy Inspector

General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu addressed a

letter to the respondent/Deputy Inspector General, Registration

and Stamps, Kurnool in Letter No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021

stating that an amount of Rs.32,11,980/- dues to be recoverable

from the petitioner. Similarly, the District Registrar, Kurnool

addressed a letter to the respondent in Letter No.E1/744/2016

dated 09.07.2021, an amount of Rs.30,68,496/- and

Rs.27,42,170/-, totalling to Rs.58,10,666/- is to be recovered from MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

the petitioner as per the Audit Report of the Accountant General,

Andhra Pradesh from 2009 to 2017.

It appears from the record that, in view of these letters,

request of this petitioner was rejected by the respondent herein. As

seen from the material, no proceedings were initiated against this

petitioner to recover the amount, as mentioned in the Letter

No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 addressed by Deputy Inspector

General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu and Letter

No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021 addressed by District

Registrar, Kurnool, to the respondent herein/Deputy Inspector

General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, except refusing the

request of this petitioner to release Encashment of Earned Leave

available to his credit on his retirement and also sanction 80% of

Retirement Gratuity.

When this Court issued a direction to release the amount, it

is for the respondent to take steps and when the respondent took

steps and expressed his difficulty in releasing the amount to this

petitioner on account of huge amount to be recovered from the

petitioner, consequently rejection of the request of this petitioner

cannot be said to be wilful disobedience or flouting the orders of

this Court, as the respondent being a Government Servant made

every attempt to protect the State revenue and refused to release

the amount to this petitioner. In fact, by the date of passing order

in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the amount that is to

be recovered from this petitioner i.e Rs.89,52,061/- was not

brought to the notice of this Court either by the petitioner or by the

respondent, except inviting an order.

MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

However, it is evident from the record that Letter

No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 addressed by Deputy Inspector

General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu and Letter

No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021 addressed by District

Registrar, Kurnool, addressed to the respondent herein/Deputy

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, were

received after submission of report by office of Accountant General.

Therefore, question of disclosing the amount to be recovered from

this petitioner by the State does not arise, as it was not finalized by

them. Hence, considering the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, I hold that the respondent/contemnor

did not disobey the order of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021

dated 18.02.2021 wilfully and intentionally, for the reasons

mentioned in Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021.

Consequently, the respondent/contemnor cannot be punished for

the alleged contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, thereby, the contempt case is liable to be closed.

In the result, contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the

petitioner to challenge Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated

30.06.2021, if advised. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall also stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:23.08.2021

SP MSM,J

C.C.No.841 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

CONTEMPT CASE NO.841 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3930 OF 2021

Date :23.08.2021

SP