Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Akula Prasanna Kumar vs Harish Kumar Gupta on 7 September, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.C.No.1128 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner had been selected provisionally for the post of SCT PC
(Civil) (Men) in the course of selection process. However, the application
of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was involved in a
Criminal Case in Crime No.160 of 2011 for the offences punishable under
Sections 506 and 509 of I.P.C., of Duggirala Police Station. Questioning
the said rejection of his application, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.3774
of 2014 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The
Tribunal by its order dated 27.09.2016 had set aside the cancellation
order and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as SCT PS
(Civil) (Men).
2. Aggrieved by the said direction, the State had filed
W.P.No.20889 of 2017 before this Court and the same came to be
disposed of along with batch in W.P.No.19473 of 2017 and batch on
10.11.2017 granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to
the respondents with a direction to the authorities to consider the same
and pass appropriate orders in terms of the guidelines laid down in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).No.20525 of 2011
dated 21.07.2016.
3. The representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of
this direction was rejected by the 1st respondent by way of a Memo dated
06.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioner again
approached this Court by way of W.P.No.12352 of 2020. This writ petition
was disposed of on 08.12.2020 by way of a common order. The directions
of this court were as follows:
2 RRR,J
C.C.No.1128 of 2022
"Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms
of paragraph No.7 of the order dated 23.01.2020 in
W.P.No.34535 of 2014."
4. Thereafter, the petitioner, in pursuance of the directions of
this Court, had filed a representation before the 1 st respondent on
31.08.2021. However, this representation was also rejected by the 1st
respondent on 20.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner
has filed the present contempt case contending that the rejection of the
representation of the petitioner by the 1 st respondent, was not in
accordance with the directions of this Court, and as such, would amount
to violation of the directions of this Court for which the 1st respondent
require to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit attaching the
order of rejection dated 20.10.2021. In the said order of rejection, the 1st
respondent, after considering the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.,1, had referred to another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.09.2021 in Civil Appeal
Nos.5743 - 5744 of 2021 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held
that even if the dispute is trivial in nature, the fact that the said criminal
case was not disclosed would raise the question of trust and therefore,
the employer shall take a decision whether such persons could be
continued in service or not.
6. The 1st respondent, on the basis of these observations,
appears to have rejected the application of the petitioner.
(2016) 8 SCC 471
3 RRR,J
C.C.No.1128 of 2022
7. The petitioner assails this rejection on the ground that the
said order is a clear violation of the directions of this Court.
8. Having perused both the earlier order passed by this Court
as well as the rejection order, it cannot be said that the 1 st respondent did
not have any discretion in the matter and was only required to pass an
order in favour of the petitioner. All this Court had held was that it was
open to the 1st respondent to take a decision in accordance with the
guidelines set out in Avata Singh's case. This would not preclude the 1st
respondent from exercising his discretion in the matter.
9. Further, this Court does not find the order of the 1st
respondent to be in total violation of the directions of this Court or an
attempt to bypass the orders of this Court. In the circumstances, this
Court does not find any violation of the directions of this Court.
10. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. However, the
observations in this order shall not be taken into account in the event of
the petitioner pursuing his remedies against the order dated 20.10.2021.
Further it shall be open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies against
the order dated 20.10.2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
29th August, 2022
Js.
4 RRR,J
C.C.No.1128 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.C.No.1128 of 2022
29th August, 2022
Js.
