D Venkateshwar Rao vs In Re
2021 Latest Caselaw 1606 Tel

Items No.35-37

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                    C.A.Nos.33, 34 & 35 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.

C.A.No.33 of 2018 arises from the order dated 29.08.2018

passed in C.C.No.1918 of 2018, a suo motu contempt petition taken

up by the learned Single Judge on noticing non-compliance of the

order dated 22.06.2018, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed by the

petitioner in W.P.No.21225 of 2018.

2. C.A.No.34 of 2018 arises from the order dated 29.08.2018

passed in C.C.No.1862 of 2018, a suo motu contempt petition taken

up by the learned Single Judge on noticing non-compliance of the

order dated 22.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed by the

petitioner in W.P.No.20343 of 2018.

3. C.A.No.35 of 2018 arises from the order dated 29.08.2018

passed in C.C.No.1915 of 2018, a suo motu contempt petition taken

up by the learned Single Judge noticing non-compliance of the order

dated 18.06.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed by the petitioner in

W.P.No.21225 of 2018.

4. Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the appellants concedes that there was a delay of three

months on the part of the appellants in implementing the interim

orders dated 22.06.2018 and 18.06.2018 and awarding weightage

points to the petitioners on spouse grounds in the transfer counselling

conducted in terms of the Telangana Teachers (Regulation of

Transfers) Rules, 2018. He submits that after three months,

weightage points were duly awarded to the petitioners and they were

given a posting of their choice. The said submission was also made

before the learned Single Judge, who accepted the contrition offered

by the appellants, but has imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/- on

them, failing which it was directed that the appellants would have to

undergo sentence of imprisonment for a period three days.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellant in

C.A.No.34 of 2018 had superannuated on 30.06.2019 and the

appellant in C.A.Nos.33 and 35 has not faced any contempt

proceedings before any other court. He also clarifies that the fine of

Rs.2,000/- was deposited by both the appellants, in terms of the

impugned order, on 31.10.2018.

6. We are of the opinion that the matters ought to be closed in

view of the regret expressed by the appellants and keeping in mind the

fact that they have already deposited the fine amounts.

7. The appeals are accordingly closed along with the pending

applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

10.06.2021 Lrkm/pln