Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 483 (AP)

B. Rajesh v. Budithi Rajsekhar, Ias

2022-05-02

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This contempt case has been filed complaining willful disobedience of the Respondents in implementing the order, dated 08.03.2021 in I.a.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.5521 of 2021. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners filed writ petition against the action of the Respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners to undergo B.P.Ed. with pay and allowances as B.P.Ed. is not a pre-requisite for the promotion in the case of SGT vide impugned Memo No.13022/58/2020-EST.3, dated 11.01.2021 and for consequential reliefs. 3. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, Social Welfare (B3) Department, dated 30.08.1977, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit provided under the said G.O. in cases where the acquiring of higher educational qualifications in pre-requisite for further promotion according to the Rules, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees should be deputed for higher studies within the country with full pay and allowances subject to certain conditions. 4. This Court passed interim order in I.a.No.1 of 2021 directing the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners to undergo B.P.Ed. with pay and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, Social Welfare (B3) Department, dated 30.08.1977. This Court also ordered interim suspension of Memo No.13022/58/2020-EST.3, dated 11.01.2021, issued by the 2nd Respondent, by order, dated 08.03.2021. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the Respondents did not implement the order of the Court and thereby willfully disobeyed the order passed by the Court and they are liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Court act. 6. The Respondents filed their counter-affidavits. 7. The contention of the Respondents is that the case of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that acquiring B.P.Ed. is not a pre-requisite qualification for immediate promotion channel. 8. In the counter-affidavits of the Respondents, it is averred that the 3rd Respondent has submitted a letter to the 2nd Respondent on 26.05.2021 for issuance of necessary orders in the matter. In turn, the 2nd Respondent submitted a proposal to the 1st Respondent on 30.09.2021. In response to the proposal submitted by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.703080/Services-II/a1/2021, dated 04.12.2021 and permitted the petitioners to undergo B.P.Ed. with full pay and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, Social Welfare (B3) Department, dated 30.08.1977. In turn, the 2nd Respondent submitted a proposal to the 1st Respondent on 30.09.2021. In response to the proposal submitted by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent vide Memo No.703080/Services-II/a1/2021, dated 04.12.2021 and permitted the petitioners to undergo B.P.Ed. with full pay and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, Social Welfare (B3) Department, dated 30.08.1977. The 2nd Respondent has communicated a copy of the Memo issued by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent vide Memo, dated 06.12.2021. In pursuance of the Memo, dated 04.12.2021 and 06.12.2021 of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, the 3rd Respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.2118/B2/2021, dated 07.12.2021, permitting the petitioners to undergo B.P.Ed. with full pay and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.342, Social Welfare (B3) Department, dated 30.08.1977, subject to the condition that the facilities should be utilized for only one such training programme in a career spare of an employee and subject to outcome of W.P.No.5521 of 2021. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. 10. This Court passed interim order on 08.03.2021 in I.a.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.5521 of 2021. as per the averments made in the counter-affidavits of the Respondents, the order of the Court is complied with on 07.12.2021. as such, there is a delay in implement the order of the Court. It appears the 2nd Respondent sent proposal to 1st Respondent only on 30.09.2021 to implement the order. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the 2nd Respondent willfully disobeyed the order of the Court in true letter and spirit. accordingly, the 2nd Respondent is found guilty of Contempt of Court and the Contemnor is liable for the punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Court act. 11. after receipt of the proposal from the 2nd Respondent, a Memo, dated 04.12.2021 is issued by the 1st Respondent to implement the order of the Court. There is no such delay on the part of the 1st Respondent. 12. With regard to the 3rd Respondent is concerned, she is the subordinate Officer to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and any decision taken by them has to be executed by the 3rd Respondent. To implement the order of the Court, the 1st Respondent issued Memo on 04.12.2021 and the 2nd Respondent issued Memo on 06.12.2021 and immediately, the 3rd Respondent issued proceedings on 07.12.2021. 13. To implement the order of the Court, the 1st Respondent issued Memo on 04.12.2021 and the 2nd Respondent issued Memo on 06.12.2021 and immediately, the 3rd Respondent issued proceedings on 07.12.2021. 13. as such, in our considered opinion, there is no any disobedience on the part of the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 in implementing the order of the Court. accordingly, the contempt case is closed against the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. 14. Though the Contemnor in his counter-affidavit tendered unconditional apology, this Court is not inclined to accept his apology, in our view, it is not bonafide. 15. accordingly, the contempt case against Contemnor is allowed and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four (4) weeks and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only), in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 16. at request of the learned counsel appearing for Contemnor, the sentence is suspended for a period of two (2) weeks. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.