HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+CONTEMPT CASE No.3037 of 2023

Between:

# P. Sankar, S/o Late Panthulua Nagaraja

… Petitioner

And

$ Shri Harish Kumar Gupta, IPS

Present wrokign as Principal Secretary,

Home Department, Government of A.P.,

A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,

Guntur District and another.

…. Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 08.08.2023

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see

the fair copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+CONTEMPT CASE No.3037 of 2023

% 08.08.2023

Between:

# P. Sankar, S/o Late Panthulua Nagaraja

… Petitioner

And

$ Shri Harish Kumar Gupta, IPS

Present wrokign as Principal Secretary,

Home Department, Government of A.P.,

A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,

Guntur District and another.

…. Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Bharat Babu

Counsel for Respondent: Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar

Learned G.P. for Services-I

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2012) 1 SCC 273

2. (2006) 5 SCC 1

3. AIR 2008 SC 3016

4. Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High

Court

3

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.3037 of 2023

ORDER :

This contempt case has been filed by the petitioner to

punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt

of Courts Act for their willful disobedience to the order dated

11.07.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.20923 of 2020.

2. Heard Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/

contemnors.

3. This Court vide order, dated 05.07.2022 in

W.P.No.28300 of 2021, has disposed of the writ petition. The

operative portion of the said order, reads as under:

“Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while declaring the action

of the 2

nd respondent in keeping the services of the petitioner under

suspension vide proceedings dated 31.12.2020 and subsequent proceedings

dated 14.09.2021 as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside and

further directing the 2

nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service,

within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1

st respondent

denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated

that, vide G.O.Ms.No.526 Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Dept., dated

19.08.2008 the Government has directed that the employees

who are under suspension for a period of exceeding two years

shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary

cases/criminal cases against them. However, on the directions

of this Court in WP No.28300 of 2021, the Government have

convened a Standing Committee meeting to review the

suspension cases of ACB against Police Personnel including

the AO Sri Panthula Sankar, DSP, who are under suspension

on 28.9.2022 at 4.00 PM for its recommendations.

Accordingly, the review committee have recommended to

revoke the suspension of the accused officer Sri Panthula

Sankar i.e., the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the

Government has issued orders to revoke the suspension of Sri

P. Sankar, DSP vide Govt. Memo No.1634187/SC.A/A2/2022-

3 dated 15.5.2023. Consequently, the DGP, AP, Mangalagiri

have issued proceedings vide Rc.No.486/02/2020 dated

16.5.2023 and directed the petitioner to report at the Chief

Office for further posting. Hence it is stated that there is no

disobedience in implementing the orders of this Court.

5

5. On perusing the proceeding sheet, on 14.7.2023, Sri

G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government pleader submitted

that the respondents have complied with the order of this

Court and the 1

st respondent has also filed counter affidavit.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that though this Court has passed an order dated 5.7.2022 in

WP No.28300 of 2021 directing the 2

nd

respondent to reinstate

the petitioner into service, within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of the order, he has not complied

with the said order. But to that extent, learned counsel for the

2

nd

respondent has placed a copy of the proceedings Rc

No.486/02/2020 dated 16.5.2023 of the Director General of

Police, A.P., Mangalagiri and submitted that the respondents

have complied with the order of this Court in letter and spirit.

Moreover, this Court has not satisfied with the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the 2

nd respondent that

though the impugned suspension order was set aside by this

Court and directed the 2

nd

respondent to reinstate the

petitioner into service within a period of four weeks, they are

trying to submit that they have complied with the order of this

Court. in view of the same, this Court directed the 2

nd

respondent to appear before this Court on 28.7.2023 and also

6

directed to explain as to how the order of this Court is

complied with in true letter and spirit manner or not.

6. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 28.7.2023,

learned counsel for the 2

nd respondent submitted that I.A.No.1

of 2023 has been filed to dispense with the presence of the

petitioner/2

nd respondent before this Court. In the affidavit

filed in support of the application, the 2

nd

respondent stated

that, after receipt of order of this Court dated 05.07.2022 in

WP No.28300 of 2021, on 29.8.2022 the same was sent to the

1

st

respondent, as it is the competent authority to review

suspension orders in cases pertaining to ACB investigation

and also made a request to honour the orders of this Court.

On 26.9.2022, the 1

st respondent requested the 2

nd respondent

to attend review meeting on suspension cases on 28.9.2022.

Thereafter the 1

st respondent ha reviewed the suspension order

of the petitioner on 28.9.2022 at 4.00 PM but no order of

revocation of suspension of the petitioner was issued by the 1

st

respondent. This respondent vide letter in Rc.No.486/02/

2020, dated 01.05.2023 also forwarded the representation of

the petitioner to reinstate him into service. in the meantime,

the petitioner filed the present contempt case. While the

matter stood thus, the 1

st

respondent has issued orders

7

revoking the suspension of the petitioner pending finalization

of criminal/disciplinary cases against him vide Memorandum

No.1634187/SC.A/A2/2022-3, dated 15.05.2023.

7. Thereafter, this respondent immediately issued order

vide proceedings Rc.No.486/02/2020 dated 16.5.2023

revoking the suspension of the petitioner with instructions to

him to report at the office of this respondent for further posting

and the same was submitted to this Court vide Lr.Rc.No.1222/

F4/2023, dated 24.05.2023 and the petitioner reported for

duty in the office of the 2

nd

respondent on 24.5.2023. Later, as

per the recommendations of the Police Establishment Board

constituted in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 24.5.2022 of Genl. Admn.

(SC.C) Department, the petitioner was posted to CID in the

existing vacancy vide Proc.No.831/G2/2023 dated 14.7.2023.

He reported for duty in CID on 24.7.2023

It is further stated that though this Court issued orders

to this respondent to reinstate the petitioner, this respondent

is not competent as per the Guidelines issued by the

Government under Rule 8 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and

Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department shall review

the suspension cases of the Department in respect of the

proceedings that arose out of the investigations conducted by

8

the ACB. In this connection, it is submitted that this Court

may kindly consider to issue orders for revocation of

suspension without reference to the guidelines issued by the

Government in respect of cases involving investigations of ACB

to save delay in implementation of the orders of this Court in

future.

8. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that though this Court passed orders to consider the

case of the petitioner in letter and spirit, the respondent

authorities herein have not complied with. Therefore, learned

counsel requests this Court to pass necessary orders.

9. Further, learned Government pleader appearing for

the respondents submits that the respondents have complied

with the order of this Court in letter and spirit manner and to

that extent he has furnished a copy of proceedings in Memo

No.1634187/SC.A/A2/2022-3, dated 16.05.2023, wherein it is

stated that the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri is

invited and informed that a review meeting was conducted in

the Chambers of Principal Secretary to Government, Home

Department on 28.09.2022 with the i) Inspector General of

Police,(Trg. & Per) O/o the Director General Police, Mangalagiri

(2) Joint Director, O/o Anti Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh.

9

In the said meeting, 4 cases of Police Officers/Personnel have

been taken up for review and recommended to reinstate the (4)

Accused Officers into service.

10. He further submits that in view of the above Memo,

the DGP, A.P., Mangalagiri is requested to issue necessary

orders to revoke the suspension of the above accused officers

and post them in to non-focal points and far away and report

compliance to Government immediately. Later, as per the

recommendations of the Police Establishment Board

constituted in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 24.5.2022 of Genl. Admn.

(SC.C) Department, the petitioner was posted to CID in the

existing vacancy vide Proc.No.831/G2/2023 dated 14.7.2023.

He reported for duty in CID on 24.7.2023. Hence, as the

orders of this Court have been complied with by the

respondents, learned Government Pleader requests this Court

that the present contempt case may be closed.

11. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India

1,

the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted

hereunder:

1

(2012) 1 SCC 273

10

“Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of

the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government

departments are no exception to it.”

12. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok

Khot

2

, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed

as extracted hereunder:

“It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court

orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive

and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders

of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the

judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic

society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is

to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the

spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and

authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all

costs.”

13. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao

3

, the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted

hereunder:

“9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts

because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked

usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting

the dignity and authority of the Court.

10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and

sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders

strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on

which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not in the

2

(2006) 5 SCC 1

3

AIR 2008 SC 3016

11

interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of

those who have succeeded in the Courts.

23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be

implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under

any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set

aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in

implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for

appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience

to the Court.”

14. In the case of “M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav

and Another”

4 wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held

as follows:

“20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the

machinery of justice and the interests of the public in order to

protect these dual interests, unwarranted interference with

administration of justice must be prevented. The power to punish

for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that

the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders,

Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the

administration of justice. To ensure these objective, there are also

constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart

from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution

of India a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are

admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when

produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to

punish for contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression

created by the Court is that even if Article 129 and 215 were not

there in Constitution the contempt powers of Courts of record

would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to

exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of

Courts Act”.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the

purpose and object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra.

4

Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court

12

15. 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.

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this

Court observed that, as stated by the 2

nd

respondent, he has

complied with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit

manner, but it is observed that the orders are passed on

05.07.2022 and the respondents have complied with the same

on 14.07.2023 i.e., nearly after one year. It is true that the

respondents are complied with the orders of this Court, but

belatedly. Further, the 1

st respondent pleaded unconditional

apology causing delay.

17. It is observed that the Senior Officers repeatedly in a

routine manner tendering unconditional apologies but they are

not changing their mindset to comply with the orders with the

time stipulated by this Court. Therefore, the respondents are

13

directed to be cautious in future in complying with the orders

of this Court.

18. In view of the above submissions, as the orders of

this Court dated 11.07.2022 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.20923 of 2020, have been complied with, no orders are

required to be passed in this contempt case and the same is

liable to be closed.

19. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No

order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if

any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 08 -08-2023

Note : L.R copy to be marked.

(b/o)Gvl

14

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

CONTEMPT CASE No.3037 of 2023

Date : 08 .08.2023

Gvl

15