ORDER : 1. This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner – Bhupani Venkata Naidu against one V. Kiran Kumar, Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. 2. It is alleged that this Court issued a direction and passed final order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, which reads as follows : “….the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount on encashment of Earned Leave available to his credit along with 80% retirement gratuity and the respondents are directed to release the amount payable on encashment of Earned Leave to the credit of the petitioner’s leave account and also pay 80% retirement gratuity, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.” 3. After passing final order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the petitioner made a representation requesting for sanction of Earned Leave Encashment for 300 days and also gratuity on 06.04.2021. But, for the reasons best known to the respondent/contemnor, no action was taken and the order was not implemented, thereby, there was inaction of the respondents in not implementing the order of this Court is not only disobedience and disrespect to the orders of this Court, but also frustrating the cause of justice. Therefore, the respondents have deliberately and wilfully flouted the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 and thus committed contempt. Therefore, action of the respondent/contemnor attracts contempt and requested to punish the contemnor in accordance with law. 4. The respondent/contemnor/V. Kiran Kumar, Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps filed counter affidavit denying material allegations, while admitting about passing an order by this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021. 5. The events that lead to filing of writ petition by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was trapped by officials of Anti Corruption Bureau while he was working as Sub-Registrar Grade-II at Sub- Registrar Office, Adoni, Kurnool District on 17.06.2010 when he demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant Sri L. Venugopal Reddy, r/o Chinnagonehali village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner was suspended from service with immediate effect in the interest of public, as he involved in a case of moral turpitude, by proceedings of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide Proc.No.A/1040/2010 dated 19.06.2010. The petitioner was suspended from service with immediate effect in the interest of public, as he involved in a case of moral turpitude, by proceedings of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide Proc.No.A/1040/2010 dated 19.06.2010. Later, he was reinstated into service as per the decision of the Government vide Proc.No.A/1040/2010 dated 26.01.2013 of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. 6. The Government has accepted the recommendations of Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau and accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner who was Accused Officer-1 in the trap case besides initiating departmental enquiry for the irregularities committed by him as noticed by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities. The respondent/contemnor also narrated various incidents about final reinstatement, imposing penalty, punishment, departmental enquiry, wherein, the suspension period has to be treated as ‘Non-duty’. Accordingly, Government Memo No.31131/Vig.II(2)/2010-20 Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department dated 15.01.2019 has rejected the representation of the petitioner to treat the suspension period as on ‘Duty’. Criminal appeal is also pending before the High Court against the judgment of Trial Court in Calendar Case No.87 of 2013 dated 02.01.2015, which is filed by the State, the petitioner was found not guilty. Thus, the petitioner was acquitted finding him not guilty for the charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, but, punishment was imposed in the departmental proceedings for the suspension period, treating the period as ‘Not on duty’. 7. The respondent/contemnor urged for dismissal of the contempt case on the sole ground that, the contemnor who is Respondent No.3 in the writ petition is solely arrayed as respondent in the present contempt case and since the respondent herein is not the only competent authority to pay retirement gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioner, but required necessary orders from the Government. With due respect and being controlling authority, the respondent immediately took steps for implementation of orders of this Court by addressing a letter to the Government vide Lr.No.PN/1325/2015 dated 29.04.2021. In the said letter, the respondent specifically cited the orders of this Court and referred the representation of this petitioner. On this ground, the contempt case is sought to be dismissed. 8. The respondent/contemnor contended that the petitioner intentionally and wilfully filed a contempt case against the respondent alone, though Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are parties to the writ petition and Respondent Nos. On this ground, the contempt case is sought to be dismissed. 8. The respondent/contemnor contended that the petitioner intentionally and wilfully filed a contempt case against the respondent alone, though Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are parties to the writ petition and Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are also competent to accord permission and release the above stated amounts as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that, the legal hurdle in this case is that, Government of Andhra Pradesh rejected the request of petitioner with regard to regularization of suspension period as ‘On Duty’ vide Memo No.31131/Vig.II(2)/2010-2020 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 15.01.2019. Against the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5093 of 2021 and this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner with regard to regularization of suspension period. As long as consideration of the request for payment of Retirement Gratuity is pending, Encashment of Earned Leave in finalizing the earned leave account to the credit of petitioner and further fixing the retiremental benefits to the petitioner will be in conflict. 9. The respondent mainly contended that, on examination of the representation of the petitioner, records available and as per rule position, a speaking order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool vide Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021, informing that a letter has been addressed to the Government with regard to issue of instructions on regularization of suspension period basing on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5093 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 and instructions are awaited from the Government for release of gratuity. The respondent also narrated several facts with regard to No Due Certificate particulars called for from the respective District Registrars and Deputy Inspectors General while the petitioner was in service vide office Memo No.PN/1352/2015 dated 02.06.2016 and subsequent reminders. The District Registrar, Kurnool vide Lr.No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021 submitted No Due Certificate report of Kurnool District that there is an amount of Rs.58,10,666/- to be recovered from the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu vide Lr.No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 furnished consolidated No Due Certificate report from Anantapuram District that there is an amount of Rs.31,41,395/- to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner caused loss to the Government while the petitioner worked as Sub-Registrar at Tadipatri, Adoni and Pathikonda which were detected during Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General’s Local Audit Reports. The petitioner caused loss to the Government while the petitioner worked as Sub-Registrar at Tadipatri, Adoni and Pathikonda which were detected during Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General’s Local Audit Reports. The consolidated No Due Certificate amount is Rs.89,52,061/-. Further, it is contended that, the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Pension Verification Report authorized for release of Rs.9,27,251/- as Retirement Gratuity and No Due Certificate amount of Rs.89,52,061/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Hence, as per law, at this juncture, the petitioner is not in the zone of consideration for release of Retirement Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave, until the loss to Government is realized either from the petitioner or from the parties who have registered documents. 10. Finally, it is contended that, the contemnor took appropriate action during his tenure, which could not be concluded on account of hurdles referred above and requested to dismiss the contempt case, on this ground also. 11. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the respondent herein/contemnor has violated the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 and he is the person who has to implement the order passed by this Court. Despite representation made by this petitioner, after passing order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the respondent/contemnor did not take any action and requested to punish the respondent by conducting summary enquiry in accordance with law under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 12. Whereas, Sri Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that, the respondent alone is not the person who has to implement the order of this Court, but Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 in the writ petition are also responsible for implementation of the order and therefore, in their absence, contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Besides that, an amount of Rs.89,52,061/- is to be recovered from the petitioner in view of Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General’s Local Audit Reports, whereas, the Gratuity payable to this petitioner is Rs.9,27,251/-. In these circumstances, question of payment of Gratuity to this petitioner is not possible and finally requested to dismiss the contempt case. 13. According to the contention of the petitioner, the respondent alone is the competent person to release the retirement gratuity, whereas, the respondent contention is that, the State and Respondent Nos. In these circumstances, question of payment of Gratuity to this petitioner is not possible and finally requested to dismiss the contempt case. 13. According to the contention of the petitioner, the respondent alone is the competent person to release the retirement gratuity, whereas, the respondent contention is that, the State and Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 4 are responsible for implementation of the orders of this Court and process of payment. 14. No doubt, the respondent/contemnor is the authority who has to take action on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021. But, there is a long process for release of Gratuity and Leave Encashment amount to this petitioner, as directed by this Court. The contemnor not only implemented the order passed by this Court, but also protected the revenue of the State. Though the respondent is the person competent to implement the order of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, on account of hurdles in view of Internal Audit Reports and Accountant General’s Local Audit Reports regarding recovery of Rs.89,52,061/- either from the petitioner or from the parties who have registered documents, , who caused loss to the State exchequer, leave enacashment and gratuity and amount could not be released to this petitioner. The contention of the respondent that, respondent himself is alone not responsible for implementation of the order is not supported by any material and therefore, the contention of this petitioner that the respondent failed to implement the order is to be accepted. But, mere failure to implement the order of this Court is not sufficient to punish the contemnor. Unless the Court concludes that disobedience is wilful and intentional, the respondent is not liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Here, after passing the order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the contemnor took steps to implement the order and issued Proceedings in Lr.No.PN/1325/2015 dated 29.04.2021, marking a copy to the petitioner, informing as follows: “The original order copy is not received in this office till date. The directions were passed to the Respondents to release the amount payable on encashment of Earned Leave to the credit of the petitioner’s leave account and also pay 80% retirement gratuity, in accordance with law, without four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 15. The directions were passed to the Respondents to release the amount payable on encashment of Earned Leave to the credit of the petitioner’s leave account and also pay 80% retirement gratuity, in accordance with law, without four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 15. But, due to non-receipt of copy order from this Court, the request of the petitioner could not be examined and informed that action will be taken after receipt of original order from this Court. Thereafter, Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021 were issued by the respondent, rejecting the request of this petitioner to sanction Encashment of Earned Leave available to his credit on his retirement and also sanction of 80% of Retirement Gratuity, until the instructions are issued from the Government with regard to Retirement Gratuity and regularization of suspension period in pursuance of W.P.No.5093 of 2021. Thereafter, Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu addressed a letter to the respondent/Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Kurnool in Letter No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 stating that an amount of Rs.32,11,980/- dues to be recoverable from the petitioner. Similarly, the District Registrar, Kurnool addressed a letter to the respondent in Letter No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021, an amount of Rs.30,68,496/- and Rs.27,42,170/-, totalling to Rs.58,10,666/- is to be recovered from the petitioner as per the Audit Report of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh from 2009 to 2017. 16. It appears from the record that, in view of these letters, request of this petitioner was rejected by the respondent herein. As seen from the material, no proceedings were initiated against this petitioner to recover the amount, as mentioned in the Letter No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 addressed by Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu and Letter No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021 addressed by District Registrar, Kurnool, to the respondent herein/Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, except refusing the request of this petitioner to release Encashment of Earned Leave available to his credit on his retirement and also sanction 80% of Retirement Gratuity. 17. 17. When this Court issued a direction to release the amount, it is for the respondent to take steps and when the respondent took steps and expressed his difficulty in releasing the amount to this petitioner on account of huge amount to be recovered from the petitioner, consequently rejection of the request of this petitioner cannot be said to be wilful disobedience or flouting the orders of this Court, as the respondent being a Government Servant made every attempt to protect the State revenue and refused to release the amount to this petitioner. In fact, by the date of passing order in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021, the amount that is to be recovered from this petitioner i.e Rs.89,52,061/- was not brought to the notice of this Court either by the petitioner or by the respondent, except inviting an order. 18. However, it is evident from the record that Letter No.E/126/2016 dated 08.07.2021 addressed by Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Anantapuramu and Letter No.E1/744/2016 dated 09.07.2021 addressed by District Registrar, Kurnool, addressed to the respondent herein/Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Kurnool, were received after submission of report by office of Accountant General. Therefore, question of disclosing the amount to be recovered from this petitioner by the State does not arise, as it was not finalized by them. Hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the respondent/contemnor did not disobey the order of this Court in W.P.No.3930 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021 wilfully and intentionally, for the reasons mentioned in Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021. Consequently, the respondent/contemnor cannot be punished for the alleged contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, thereby, the contempt case is liable to be closed. 19. In the result, contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge Proceedings No.PN/1325/2015 dated 30.06.2021, if advised. No costs. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.