Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 392 (AP)

Siragam Krishna v. Chiranjeevi Chowdry

2021-07-06

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by both counsel and upon perusing the material available, the following facts emerged for consideration: (i) The Department of Horticulture, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020 for recruitment to the post Village Horticulture Assistants (1783 posts); (ii) Corrigendum to notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020 was issued on 30.01.2020 with regard to the educational qualifications mentioned at para No.3 of the notification; (iii) Amendment, dated 15.09.2020 was issued to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 and corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020; (iv) Notification, dated 10.01.2020 was issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 19.07.2019 in which a onetime relaxation was given with regard to pre requirement of framing/amendment service rules before issue of recruitment notification is given due to urgency; (v) The Government has issued the service rules for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020; (vi) Government vide Memo No.AGC01-Hort/97/2020-HS of Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 14.09.2020 issued orders permitting the Commissioner of Horticulture to withdraw the Corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020 issued to the notification, dated 10.01.2020; (vii) In compliance to the instructions issued in Memo, dated 14.09.2020, the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development was requested to withdraw the Corrigendum issued on 30.01.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 vide letter, dated 15.09.2020 of the Commissioner of Horticulture; (viii) The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development has withdrawn the Corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 and posted the same on 17.09.2020 in web portal gramasachivalayam.ap.gov.in; (ix) The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.17441 of 2020 against the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 and Corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020; (x) On 28.09.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020, this Court ordered interim suspension of the impugned amendment, dated 15.09.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent to the notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020 and Corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020, pending disposal of the writ petition; and (xi) On 05.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020, the interim order, dated 28.09.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 is made absolute. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that there is no intentional or deliberate violation by the respondents in implementing the interim order, dated 28.09.2020 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020. It is also contended that in view of the clarification given by this Court in its order, dated 05.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 while the interim order, dated 28.09.2020 was made absolute, there is no any violation of the orders of this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020 making amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules, 2005. The petitioners without challenging the service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 19.06.2020, which are intact, filed writ petition challenging the amendment made to the notification and corrigendum, which is not sustainable. 4. The findings of the Court: (1) The notification, dated 10.01.2020 was issued in terms of Sub Clause IX of Clause 14 of G.O.Ms.No.110, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 19.07.2019 in which a onetime relaxation granted by the Government. (2) Amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Service Rules was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020. There is no mention in the said Government Order with regard to applicability of the amendments made. In the absence of specific mention about the applicability of the amended rules retrospectively, it is settled law that the rules shall be applicable prospectively. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the light of the service rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.64, Agriculture and Cooperation (H&S) Department, dated 19.06.2020, the respondents are empowered to issue the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 and corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020 is untenable and not acceptable under law. (3) As and when, the amendment, dated 15.09.20220 issued by the 3rd respondent was suspended by this Court by order, dated 28.09.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 pending disposal of the writ petition, the action of the respondents in proceeding with the selection process as per the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 is nothing but violating the orders, dated 28.09.2020 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020. (4) The clarification mentioned in the order, dated 05.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 is with regard to announcement of results, which is not relevant for this contempt case. (4) The clarification mentioned in the order, dated 05.03.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 is with regard to announcement of results, which is not relevant for this contempt case. This Court is considering the contemptuous attitude of the respondents for not honouring the order in I.A.No.1 of 2020. 5. For the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case and findings noted by this Court as above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents ought not to have proceeded with the selection process as per the amendment, dated 15.09.2020, which was suspended by this Court by order, dated 28.09.2020. 6. As such, this Court left with no option except to hold that the action of the respondents in proceeding with the selection process as per the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020 and corrigendum, dated 30.01.2020 is intentional, wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court on 28.09.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.17441 of 2020. 7. Now, this Court has to consider which respondent is responsible for violation of the orders of this Court. 8. Admittedly, the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 was issued by the Commissioner of Horticulture and he addressed a letter, dated 15.09.2020 to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to withdraw the corrigendum issued on 30.01.2020 to the notification, dated 10.01.2020. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development has withdrawn and posted the same on 17.09.2020 in web portal gramasachivalayam.ap.gov.in. As and when the amendment, dated 15.09.2020 was suspended by this Court by its order, dated 28.09.2020, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Horticulture and the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to implement the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 28.09.2020 in true letter and spirit. But, they proceeded with the selection process without implementing the order passed by this Court. As such, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 9. The 3rd respondent, being the Chairman of District Selection Committee, conducted the examination as per the instructions of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and admittedly he has no role in issuing notification, corrigendum and amendment, which was suspended by this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, continuing the contempt proceedings against the 3rd respondent is unwarranted. 9. The 3rd respondent, being the Chairman of District Selection Committee, conducted the examination as per the instructions of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and admittedly he has no role in issuing notification, corrigendum and amendment, which was suspended by this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, continuing the contempt proceedings against the 3rd respondent is unwarranted. In view of the admitted fact that the 3rd respondent is not a competent authority to implement the orders, dated 28.09.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and accordingly, the contempt case is closed against him. 10. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, post on 20.04.2021. 11. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall be present before the Court on 20.04.2021. 12. This Court by order, dated 06.04.2021 gave finding holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 proceeded with the selection process contrary to the order, dated 28.09.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.17441 of 2020 passed by this Court, and, as such, they are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Contempt Case is posted to 20.04.2021. On 20.04.2021 this Court requested the learned Advocate General to assist this Court in this case. On 06.05.2021 the learned Advocate General advanced his arguments to assist this Court in this Contempt Case. On 22.06.2021 when this Court expressed its view to impose punishment to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for non- compliance of the orders of this Court, dated 28.09.2020, they requested the Court to grant two weeks time and accordingly, this Court postponed to pass orders of punishment to 06.07.2021. 13. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 present before this Court today. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their affidavits on 05.07.2021 stating that the order of the Court is complied with on 03.07.2021. 15. This Court perused the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 16. Upon perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is clear that though the order is complied with on 03.07.2021, there is a delay of Nine (09) months in complying the order, dated 28.09.2020. 17. 15. This Court perused the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 16. Upon perusal of the affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is clear that though the order is complied with on 03.07.2021, there is a delay of Nine (09) months in complying the order, dated 28.09.2020. 17. When the Court asked respondents as to why they should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court, dated 28.09.2020 in true spirit, they prayed the Court to pardon them. 18. This Court noticed from the material available on record, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 made every attempt to defeat the order of this Court intentionally and deliberately without complying the same in true spirit for the last Nine (09) months. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by the respondents is not acceptable and in the opinion of this Court, it is not bonafide. 19. Besides this, if any lenient view is taken against such type of officers, who are not implementing the orders of this Court for months together and implementing the Court orders only after either issuance of notices in Form-I for their appearance before the Court or after knowing that the Court is came to a conclusion to punish them, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government Officers. 20. A Four Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mulkh Raj vs. State of Punjab; 1972 3 SCC 839 made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us: "Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 21. The High Court was right in not taking any notice of the appellants expression of apology "without any further word". The High Court correctly said that acceptance of apology in the case would amount to allow the offender to go way with impunity after having committed gross contempt." 21. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Nine (09) days each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three (03) days each. 22. After pronouncement of order of sentence, the contemnors again prayed this Court to pardon them considering their age and the service they rendered as officers of the State for all these years. They also assured to be more careful in future in implementing the Court orders. 23. This Court after considering the submissions of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and in the interest of the families of the contemnors, in the opinion of this Court, it is not desirable for sending them into jail in the present situation of COVID-19 pandemic. 24. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is modified on humanitarian grounds as under: "The respondent Nos.1 and 2-Contemors are sentenced for imprisonment till rising of the Court today and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each in default, Simple Imprisonment for three (03) days." 25. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.