Judgment : This Contempt Case is filed for punishing the respondents for their alleged willful violation of order, dated 18-3-2010, in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 of this Court. The facts necessary for disposal of the Contempt Case are briefly set out hereunder: The petitioner, a practicing Advocate at Darsi, Prakasam District, filed Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 for a mandamus to declare the action of the District Collector, Prakasam District (respondent No.2), in not sending the panel of five candidates furnished by the District Judge, Prakasam District, to the State Government and, instead, requesting the District Judge to include the names specified by the State Government in the panel, and, in turn, the District Judge indicating his no objection for such inclusion as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to furnish the panel of five candidates sent by the District Judge through his letter dated 8-12-2009 to the State Government for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor at Darsi. While admitting the Writ Petition, this Court on 18-3-2010 passed an interim order in WPMP No.7837 of 2010, the relevant part of which reads as under: “A perusal of the record shows that in addition to the five names recommended by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 had got two more names included in the first place and the third name later, increasing the total number panel to 8. The manner in which the names are added progressively prima facie appears to be not in consonance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I find balance of convenience and public interest in favour of the petitioner to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 3 from proceeding further in pursuance of the panel sent by respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, pending further orders. This order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos.1 to 3 from processing the panel, dated 08-12-2009, sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and taking a decision thereon”. This order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos.1 to 3 from processing the panel, dated 08-12-2009, sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 and taking a decision thereon”. The writ petitioner filed the present Contempt Case with the allegation that despite the peremptory orders of this Court, the State Government issued G.O.Rt No.1901, (L.A.&J–Home-Courts.A1) Department, dated 2-11-2010, appointing Sri M.Pattabhi Rami Reddy as Additional Public Prosecutor for the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, Prakasam District, for a period of three years. The petitioner pleaded that the appointee under the said G.O., was not included in the panel of five names originally sent by the District Judge on 8-12-2009 to respondent No.2 and that, therefore, his appointment is in utter violation of the interim order of this Court. Sri A.Sankara Narayana, Secretary (Law) to Government of Andhra Pradesh and Sri Kanthilal Dandey, District Collector, Prakasam District, were impleaded by the petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 in the Contempt Case. After taking time, a counter-affidavit was filed by Sri A.Sankara Narayana, Secretary (Law) on 9-12-2010, wherein while stating that G.O.Rt.No.1901 was issued inadvertently, steps are being taken to withdraw the same. As no such withdrawal was reported, the Contempt Case was admitted on 10-12-2010 and the personal presence of the respondents was ordered. Accordingly, both the respondents were personally present before this Court on 18-1-2011. In his counter-affidavit dated 17-1-2011, respondent No.1 has stated that the appointment of Sri M.Pattabhi Rami Reddy as Additional Public Prosecutor, whose name was not included in the original panel sent by the District Judge, has occurred by mistake; and that the respondents have taken corrective steps by cancelling the said appointment by issuing G.O.Rt.No.2175, Law (LA&J-Home-Courts.A1) Department, dated 15-12-2010. Considering the fact that the order of this Court was violated, this Court directed respondent No.1 to identify the persons responsible for such violation. Respondent No.1 has, accordingly, undertaken to identify those persons and file an affidavit apart from producing the Note File leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010. As undertaken, respondent No.1 filed an affidavit sworn to on 31-1-2011 and also an additional affidavit, dated 24-2-2011. The contents of these affidavits will be adverted to a little later. Respondent No.1 has, accordingly, undertaken to identify those persons and file an affidavit apart from producing the Note File leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010. As undertaken, respondent No.1 filed an affidavit sworn to on 31-1-2011 and also an additional affidavit, dated 24-2-2011. The contents of these affidavits will be adverted to a little later. Noticing that respondent No.1 has assumed the office of Secretary, Legislative Affairs and Justice, after circulation of the Note File, this Court suo motu impleaded Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, who was Secretary (Law) at the relevant time as respondent No.3 in the Contempt Case. After making personal appearance as per the direction of this Court, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, dated 25-2-2011, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the Note File put up by the office and vetted by the Assistant Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 22-6-2010 did not mention the existence of interim order of this Court, and that, as a result of the same, he could not act in accordance with the interim order. Having examined the contents of the affidavit of respondent No.3 and the additional affidavit of respondent No.1, this Court opined that it is necessary to implead the Deputy Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and the Section Officer, who were in charge of the file at the relevant time and, accordingly, by order dated 18-3-2011, they were, suo motu, impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the Contempt Case. All these respondents have also filed their respective counter-affidavits. From the facts noted above, the following three issues arise for consideration in this Contempt Case:- i) Whether the interim order of this Court has been violated? ii) If so, who is responsible for such violation? and iii) Whether such violation is willful? With regard to the first issue, all the respondents conceded that there is violation of the interim order, dated 18-3-2010, of this Court as G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010, appointing Sri M.Pattabhi Rami Reddy as Additional Public Prosecutor is contrary to the said interim order. Coming to the next issue, viz., who is/are responsible for such violation, I have carefully considered the pleadings of the respondents along with the original record. At the out set, let me deal with the role of respondent No.2-District Collector. Coming to the next issue, viz., who is/are responsible for such violation, I have carefully considered the pleadings of the respondents along with the original record. At the out set, let me deal with the role of respondent No.2-District Collector. Even though he has initially submitted the panel to the Law Department by progressively including three names to the list forwarded by the District Judge along with his letter dated 20-3-2010, no sooner he has received the interim order of this Court, than he has promptly brought this fact to the notice of the Department of Law through his letter dated 13-4-2010 while enclosing a copy of the interim order of this Court. Therefore, respondent No.2 is in no way responsible for issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901 dated 2-11-2010. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the part played by the other respondents. In his affidavit sworn to on 9-12-2010, respondent No.1 stated that he has taken charge of the post of Secretary (Legislative Affairs & Justice) on 25-9-2010, by which time the file was already under circulation to the Honourable Chief Minister through the Law Minister; that the file was received back on 14-10-2010 with the order of the Honourable Chief Minister; that the draft G.O., was placed for approval before him along with the Note File on 28-10-2010; and that without noticing the order of this Court available in the Note File, G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010, was issued. He has further stated that on being brought to his notice about the order of this Court, he has initiated action to get the said G.O., cancelled through circulation and that suitable disciplinary action was initiated against the staff members responsible for the lapse that has occurred. In his affidavit, dated 17-1-2011, respondent No.1 stated that in the Note File, which was placed before him for approval the fact of existence of interim order of this Court was not referred to; and that he has immediately taken steps for cancellation of G.O.Rt.No.1901 through issuance of G.O.Rt.No.2175, dated 15-12-2010. Respondent No.1 has tendered his apologies for the lapses occurred leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901. Respondent No.1 has tendered his apologies for the lapses occurred leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901. In his affidavit, dated 31-1-2011, respondent No.1, has inter alia, stated that Sri M.Mahadev, Section Officer (respondent No.6) put up the Note File on 21-6-2010; Sri T.P.Ananda Babu, Assistant Secretary (respondent No.5) and Sri K.Srinivasulu, Deputy Secretary (Cts) (respondent No.4) have signed the same on 22-6-2010; and the then Secretary(Law)-Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy (respondent No.3) has also signed the Note File on the same day. With reference to Secretariat Office Manual, respondent No.1 has stated that it is the responsibility of respondent No.6 to refer to the order of this court in the Note File; and that on account of his lapse in making such a reference, G.O.Rt.No.1901 was issued in violation of the order of this court. Respondent No.1 has also apportioned the blame among respondents 4 and 5, who are Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary, respectively, by stating that before signing the Note File, they ought to have verified the same as to the accuracy of the contents therein. Respondent No.1 has identified respondents 3 to 6 and also Smt.L.Sarada, Assistant Section Officer, and Smt.Kanakarajulu, Section Officer, as the persons involved in the process of G.O.Rt.No.1901. In the additional affidavit sworn to on 24-2-2011, respondent No.1 has, inter alia, stated that interim order, dated 18-3-2011, in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 was received in the office of Legislative Affairs & Justice on 13-4-2010; that on the very same day it was placed before the then Secretary, Legislative Affairs & Justice (respondent No.3); that respondent No.3 has initialed on it and the same was received back in his Peshi, which was given inward No.589; that, thereafter, the said order was sent to respondent No.4-Deputy Secretary (Courts), who has marked “A (Courts-A) Section”; and that respondent No.5-Assistant Secretary, to whom respondent No.4 has transmitted the file, has initialed and put the date as 16-4-2010 beneath his initial and sent the same to Courts-A Section; that, later, the order was received by respondent No.6-Section Officer, who was supposed to put up the same with the relevant file. With regard to the movement of the file before issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, respondent No.1 has stated that the panel sent by respondent No.2 was received in his office on 25-3-2010; that it was received in the section on 27-3-2010; that respondent No.6 has initiated the file on 21-6-2010; that in the first paragraph he has referred to pages 1 to 63 of the current file; that copy of the order received from this Court was at page Nos.51-53; and that though in the letter, dated 13-4-2010, sent by respondent No.2 he has referred to the interim order of this Court, respondent No.6, who has initiated the file, did not mention the copy of the order of this Court as one of the references in the reference column on the top of the Note File. He has also averred that while submitting the Note File seeking orders, respondent No.6 neither brought out the interim order of this Court, nor the respondent No.2’s letter dated 13-4-2011 in his note; and that, on account of which, the order of this Court has been lost sight of during the process of the file. He further stated that by the time he has taken charge on 25-9-2010, the file was already under circulation to the Honourable Chief Minister through the Law Minister; that he received the file from the office of the Honourable Chief Minister on 14-10-2010; that the draft G.O., was placed for approval along with the Note File on 28-10-2010; that, even at that time, the interim order of this Court was not brought to his notice by respondent No.6; that the Note File was initialed by the then Assistant Section Officer-Smt.K.Sarada on 25-10-2010, the then Section Officer-Smt.K.Kanakarajulu on 27-10-2010 before placing the same through respondent Nos.5 and 4, who signed on 28-10-2010, which was approved by respondent No.1 on the same day. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3-Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, who was the Secretary (Law) till the file reached the office of the Honourable Chief Minister, he has averred that the interim order of this Court was received by him on 13-4-2010; that the Note File was put up by the office on 23-6-2010; that the said file has not disclosed the interim order of this Court; that the office note was vetted and verified by respondent No.5-Assistant Secretary and respondent No.4-Deputy Secretary on 22-6-2010; and that, subsequently, it was placed before him on 26-3-2010. He has further averred that, oblivious of the interim order of this Court, he has inadvertently got the Note File circulated to the office of the Honourable Chief Minister. While candidly admitting his mistake, he, however, stated that the same was neither willful nor wanton and he expressed regrets for the same. He has also conceded that he has received the interim order of this Court on 13-4-2010, but he could not recollect the same due to lapse of time when the Note File was circulated to him. He has tendered his apology for his lapse. Respondent No.4 was the Deputy Secretary at the time and has since retired on reaching the superannuation on 30-6-2010 and was reappointed by the Government as Officer on Special Duty, Home Department, for a period of one year. In his counter-affidavit he has also pointed out that respondent No.6, who has prepared the Note File, failed to refer to the interim order of this Court; that in the ‘reference’ of the Note File he had mentioned only letter dated 20-3-2010 of respondent No.2, but failed to mention the letter dated 13-4-2010; on account of which, he was constrained to look into letter dated 20-3-2010 only, even though respondent No.2’s letter dated 13-4-2010 and the interim order of this Court were placed in the current file at pages 51 to 53. He has specifically averred that respondent No.6 had failed to mention the interim order of this Court resulting in misleading the officers and higher-ups in taking a decision contrary to order dated 18-3-2010 of this Court. He has placed reliance on paragraph-10 of Chapter-I of Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Office Manual (Page 3) to plead that respondent No.6 is responsible for accuracy of the notes and drafts initiated from his Section. He has placed reliance on paragraph-10 of Chapter-I of Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Office Manual (Page 3) to plead that respondent No.6 is responsible for accuracy of the notes and drafts initiated from his Section. Respondent No.4 sought to lend justification for his not going through the entire file by stating that in the matter of appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors on tenure basis, there is no need for elaborate discussion in the Note File; and that due to non-mentioning of the interim order in the Note File by respondent No.6, he has approved the same against the interim order. He also stated that he was busy in getting his pension papers finalized on the eve of his retirement from service and that the same also contributed to his failure to recollect the existence of the interim order of this Court when he signed the Note File on 22-6-2010. He has also termed the mistake committed by him as neither willful nor wanton. He has tendered his apology for the inadvertent lapse committed by him. Respondent No.5-Sri T.P.Ananda Babu, the Assistant Secretary, pleaded in his counter-affidavit that respondent No.6 has submitted the file to him on 22-6-2010 based on the proposal of respondent No.2; that the interim order dated 18-3-2010 of this Court was added at the bottom of the current file and thereby he has lost sight of the said order. He also maintained that due to passage of long time from the date of passing of the interim order and submission of the Note File, he has lost sight of the interim order, which is purely an inadvertent mistake. He stated that he has no role in the selection of Advocates, except scrutinizing the note with reference to the rule position and passing on the same to the higher officials. He has also requested for pardon for the mistake committed by him. Respondent No.5 has filed another counter-affidavit, dated 8-6-2011, which is identical to his earlier counter-affidavit dated 7-6-2011. Therefore, the contents of this counter-affidavit need not be alluded. He has also requested for pardon for the mistake committed by him. Respondent No.5 has filed another counter-affidavit, dated 8-6-2011, which is identical to his earlier counter-affidavit dated 7-6-2011. Therefore, the contents of this counter-affidavit need not be alluded. Respondent No.6, at whom the accusing finger was pointed out by all the other respondents, has stated in his counter-affidavit that the interim order, dated 18-3-2010, passed by this Court was added to the current file bearing No.3210/Cts/A1/2010; that the main proposal for appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, Prakasam District, was received in the Department on 26-3-2010; that he has taken up the file on 21-6-2010 basing on the proposal of respondent No.2 dated 20-3-2010, prepared a note and submitted the same for selection of the candidate from the panel of 8 Advocates; that as there was a time lag of nearly 70 days from the date of receipt of interim order, he has lost sight of the same; and that failure to refer to the interim order in the note submitted by him is “an unfortunate mistake occurred due to inadvertence”. Respondent No.6 further stated that the role of the Section Officer in the Secretariat is only confined to the detailing of the facts of the case in the Note File without leaving any scope for influencing the selection of the Public Prosecutors. While describing the mistake as inadvertent, he has expressed deep regrets and apologies and requested for pardon. The long and short of the pleadings of all the respondents is that the interim order of this Court was lost sight of by each of them. As noted above, respondents 1 to 5 have maintained that non-mentioning of the existence of the interim order of this Court by respondent No.6 has led to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901. A perusal of the original record produced by the learned Government Pleader would show that respondent No.2’s proposal, dated 20-3-2010, for appointment of Additional Public Prosecutor for Assistant Sessions Court, Darsi, with eight names was received by the office of the Secretary (Law) on 25-3-2010. The proposal contains the initials of four officers, viz., respondents 3 to 6. The interim order, dated 18-3-2010, in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 passed by this Court was received on 13-4-2010 by the office of the Secretary (Law) and it also contains the initials of respondents 3 to 6. The proposal contains the initials of four officers, viz., respondents 3 to 6. The interim order, dated 18-3-2010, in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 passed by this Court was received on 13-4-2010 by the office of the Secretary (Law) and it also contains the initials of respondents 3 to 6. A few days later, respondent No.2 sent letter dated 13-4-2010, which was received by the office of the Secretary (Law) on 19-4-2010 and it also contains the initials of respondents 3 to 6. A perusal of this letter shows that in reference No.1 interim order, dated 18-3-2010, of this Court was mentioned and in reference No.2 telegram, dated 22-3-2010, received from Sri Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, was mentioned. A reading of this letter would show that the purpose of respondent No.2 sending the same was only to bring to the notice of the Law Department of the interim order of this Court. A perusal of the Note File prepared by respondent No.6 would reveal that the same was prepared and initialed by him on 21-6-2010. He has categorically admitted this fact in the counter-affidavit, as noted above. Nowhere in the entire Note File did respondent No.6 make a reference to the interim order, dated 18-3-2010, of this Court and the District Collector’s letter dated 13-4-2010. The very opening para of the Note File refers to letter dated 20-3-2010 of respondent No.2 with enclosures “at PP 1-63 CF”. The letter, dated 13-4-2010, of respondent No.2, which discussed in detail the order dated 18-3-2010 of this Court and telegram dated 22-3-2010 of the counsel for the petitioner, is at page No.43 and the interim order of this Court enclosed to the said letter of respondent No.2 is at page No.47. The interim order received by the office of the Law Secretary on 13-4-2010 and initialed by all the four officers is at page Nos.51 to 53. The notice issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 and received by the office of the Secretary (Law) is at page No.55. In the face of these facts, it passes one’s comprehension as to how respondent No.6 failed to advert to the existence of the interim order of this Court. The notice issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 and received by the office of the Secretary (Law) is at page No.55. In the face of these facts, it passes one’s comprehension as to how respondent No.6 failed to advert to the existence of the interim order of this Court. Assuming that he has lost sight of the interim order, there could be no reason for him to ignore respondent No.2’s letter dated 13-4-2010 and the interim order enclosed by him to the said letter when he has specifically referred to “PP.1 to 63 CF” in the opening para of the Note File, as these documents, as noted above, are part of these pages of the record. When respondent No.6 could refer to the earlier letter of respondent No.2, dated 20-3-2010, there could be no reason why he lost sight of the later letter dated 13-4-2010 of respondent No.2 and the interim order of this Court dated 18-3-2010, which was received by his office on 13-4-2010. It is not the case of the respondents that preparation of the Note File was commenced before passing of the interim order by this Court or receipt of letter dated 13-4-2010 along with interim order of this Court from respondent No.2. On the contrary, even according to respondent No.6, he has taken up the file on 21-6-2010. If he were to forget letter dated 13-4-2010, which is a later event, then he should have forgotten letter dated 20-3-2010 of respondent No.2 too, which is earlier in point of time. Therefore, the stand taken by respondent No.6 that due to gap of nearly 70 days from the date of receipt of interim order from this Court he has lost sight of the said order appears to be a mere subterfuge. When respondent No.6 has started writing the Note File, he is not expected to selectively remember the initial letter dated 20-3-2010 of respondent No.2 and forget his later letter dated 13-4-2010, which is very much part of the record at page Nos.43 to 49, on the basis of which the Note File was initiated, processed and approved. When respondent No.6 has started writing the Note File, he is not expected to selectively remember the initial letter dated 20-3-2010 of respondent No.2 and forget his later letter dated 13-4-2010, which is very much part of the record at page Nos.43 to 49, on the basis of which the Note File was initiated, processed and approved. I have, therefore, absolutely no hesitation to hold that the omission to refer to respondent No.2’s letter dated 13-4-2010 and the interim order of this Court is not a mistake, but a deliberate act on the part of respondent No.6 in suppressing the fact of existence of the interim order of this Court obviously to ensure appointment of one of the Advocates included in the original panel sent by respondent No.2. In my opinion, respondent No.6 is chiefly responsible for misleading the higher-ups by suppressing the interim order of this Court leading to appointment of a person as Additional Public Prosecutor in flagrant violation of the order of this Court. What then is the role of respondent Nos.4 and 5 needs to be considered. A perusal of the Note File would show that the same has moved with rapid speed. The Note File, as noted above, was signed by respondent No.6 on 21-6-2010, by respondents 4 and 5 on 22-6-2010, and by respondent No.3 on 23-6-2010. However, for the reasons not known, there was a break in the movement of file, which was signed on 24-9-2010 by the Law Minister and on 13-10-2010 by the Honourable Chief Minister. Respondent No.3 was the Law Secretary till the file reached the office of the Honourable Chief Minister. Regrettably, respondents 4 and 5, who were the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, respectively, did not appear to have taken the trouble of going through the file. Being the immediate superior officers to respondent No.6, both these respondents are expected to peruse the file with care and caution instead of signing the file in a routine and casual manner on the basis of the Note File. Otherwise, the very purpose of routing the Note File through these intermediary officers will be redundant. In my opinion, it is the duty of both the respondents 5 and 4 to ensure that before the final decision is taken on the file, commission of mistakes, accidental or deliberate, at the lower level is ruled out. Otherwise, the very purpose of routing the Note File through these intermediary officers will be redundant. In my opinion, it is the duty of both the respondents 5 and 4 to ensure that before the final decision is taken on the file, commission of mistakes, accidental or deliberate, at the lower level is ruled out. The tenor of the counter-affidavits filed by both these respondents would clankingly establish that they have merely gone through the Note File without bothering to look into the file, which is of very moderate size comprising not too many documents. In the process, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have failed to notice the most crucial fact, viz., interference of this Court by passing an interim order. Even though no conclusive opinion can be given whether respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have deliberately overlooked existence of the interim order of this Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that they are guilty of serious negligence in discharge of their duties. As regards the role of respondent Nos.1 and 3, this Court is constrained to observe that they have failed to display diligence and alacrity, which is needed for the pivotal post of Secretary (Law) of the State Government. Sparing of a few minutes for perusal of the file would have made these respondents to realize existence of the interim order of this Court. While making these observations this Court is conscious of the fact that the officer holding the position of Law Secretary is burdened with many important files. But, still, there can be no excuse for him not to have a glance at the file at least cursorily before signing the Note File in order to cross check the veracity of the contents of the same. Lack of such vigilance may more often lead to committing serious mistakes in vital areas, which some times may be irreversible as well. While no motives can be attributed to these respondents, it requires to be observed that they ought to have been more vigilant in dealing with the file. From the discussion undertaken above, I hold that respondent No.6 has consciously violated interim order, dated 18-3-2010, of this Court in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 by deliberately suppressing its existence leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010, in contravention of the said interim order. From the discussion undertaken above, I hold that respondent No.6 has consciously violated interim order, dated 18-3-2010, of this Court in WPMP No.7837 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6085 of 2010 by deliberately suppressing its existence leading to issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010, in contravention of the said interim order. Hence, respondent No.6 is held guilty of the contempt. The apology tendered by him, in the opinion of this Court, is not bonafide and the same is intended only to escape from the charge of the contempt. The act of respondent No.6 has undermined the authority of this Court in public esteem. As I find no extenuating circumstances, I am of the opinion that mere imposition of fine will not commensurate with the serious nature of the act committed by him. Considering the serious nature of violation, respondent No.6 is sentenced under Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) and he shall be detained in civil prison for a period of one month besides paying a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Respondent No.6 shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) per day as required under Rule 32(1) of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980 framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. The State Government shall bear the cost of subsistence allowance. With regard to respondents 4 and 5, even though they failed to show the required diligence in dealing with the Note File, the material available before the Court is not enough to hold them guilty of deliberate violation of the order of this Court. However, it is directed that the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, shall cause initiation of disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty on the part of these two respondents, within a period of one month from today. Coming to respondents 1 and 3, I am of the opinion that no case of contempt is made out against them. But, this Court is of the opinion that these two respondents should be more cautious in future while discharging their duties on administrative side. Coming to respondents 1 and 3, I am of the opinion that no case of contempt is made out against them. But, this Court is of the opinion that these two respondents should be more cautious in future while discharging their duties on administrative side. As regards respondent No.2, in the light of the finding rendered hereinabove that he is not responsible for issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1901, dated 2-11-2010, and that he has promptly brought the interim order of this Court to the notice of the Law Department, he is fully exonerated and, accordingly, discharged from the contempt proceedings. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take necessary steps for implementation of this order. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of.