Telangana High Court
R. Swarnalatha vs K Srinivasa Rao on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, N.V.Shravan Kumar
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
CONTEMPT APPEAL No.13 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special
Government Pleader for the appellant.
Mr. G.Sethu Madhava Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
2. With the consent of the parties, the contempt appeal
is heard finally.
3. This contempt appeal under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is filed against the order
dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
C.C.No.2159 of 2022 by which the appellant has been
sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- within a period of
four weeks. It has further been directed that in default of
payment of the fine amount, the appellant shall suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
2
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this contempt appeal
briefly stated are that respondent No.1 was working as a
Junior Assistant in the Government Model Degree College,
Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool District. The services of
respondent No.1 were terminated by an order dated
05.08.2022. Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid
order in a writ petition, namely W.P.No.35873 of 2022.
The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 19.09.2022,
set aside the aforesaid order. However, liberty was given to
the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education to pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, by an
order dated 28.03.2023, respondent No.1 was reinstated
into service with effect from 05.08.2022 and the period
between 05.08.2022 to 26.10.2022 was treated as on duty.
5. Respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 10 of
the Contempt of Courts Act on the ground that the
appellant has wilfully disobeyed the order dated
19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.35873 of 2022. The learned Single Judge found
that the services of respondent No.1 were reinstated only
after the notice in the contempt proceedings was served
and therefore there appears to be a deliberate attempt on
the part of the appellant to adopt tactics to circumvent the
directions of the Court. Accordingly, a fine of Rs.2,000/-
was imposed and in default of payment of fine, the
appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one month. In the aforesaid factual background,
this contempt appeal has been filed.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant
submitted that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge was complied with. However, it is fairly submitted
that there was a delay in compliance with the directions
contained in the order due to circumstances beyond the
control of the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 has supported the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
8. We have considered the rival submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record.
9. From a perusal of the record, there appears to be no
element of wilful disobedience of the order dated
19.09.2022 on behalf of the appellant. The directions
contained in the order dated 19.09.2022 have been
complied with.
10. In the absence of any wilful disobedience of the order,
the imposition of fine of Rs.2,000/- cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside
and the contempt proceedings initiated against the
appellant are quashed.
11. In the result, the contempt appeal is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
31.10.2023
vs
