Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1209 (AP)

Yedida Challa Rao v. B. Ravindranadh

2023-08-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER: 1. This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnor/respondent under the provisions of Contempt of courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 2549 of 2020 dated 30.06.2022. 2. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 30.06.2022, in W.P. No. 2549 of 2020, has disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the same, as under: “......Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the proceedings vide R.O.C. No. 6341(2)/2019 (C.Sec), dated 28.11.2019 cancelling the appointment order of the petitioner vide R.O.C. No. 3/2019/C(2), dated 01.06.2019 issued by the respondent No. 3. Further, the respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, by taking into consideration the material produced by the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though this Court directed the respondent No. 3 i.e. the contemnor/respondent herein, he deliberately ignored the orders to resume the petitioner into duties, and hence, the respondent deliberately, wilfully disobeying the orders of this court, which amounts to contempt. Hence, learned counsel prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent filed Reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that while Sri Edia Venkanna, who is the father of the petitioner working as Village Revenue Assistant, Gopalapuram died on 5.11.2015 while in service. As per orders issued by the Government in Rule-8(3) in G.O.Ms. No. 531 Rev. (VO) Dept. dated 01.04.2005 that the spouse/dependent children of a Village Servant who dies in harness before attaining the age of 60 years may be appointed as village Servants. But, the deceased Edida Venkanna was died at the age of 68 years as his date of birth was entered in his Service Register as 35 years by year 1982, and no compassionate appointment will be applicable. 6. As per G.O.Ms. But, the deceased Edida Venkanna was died at the age of 68 years as his date of birth was entered in his Service Register as 35 years by year 1982, and no compassionate appointment will be applicable. 6. As per G.O.Ms. No. 612 GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 30.10.1991 “the adopted son or daughter of the deceased government Servant may be considered for appointment if the adoption had taken place legally at least five (5) years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant.” But the deceased did not adopt the petitioner legally and the petitioner has not been adopted legally is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Thus, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, was rejected, vide Roc. No. 59/2013/A, dated 04.04.2017. It is further stated that as per Rule-42 Power of Mandal Revenue Officer to punish village servants: The Mandal Revenue Officer or any superior authority may suo motu or on a complaint conduct an enquiry and suspend, remove or dismiss any Village Servant for misconduct or negligence of duty in capacity or for no residence in the village or for conviction in a criminal case which in his opinion disqualifies him from holding the office or for any other sufficient cause. But in the instant case, as the question of punish the village servant i.e. the petitioner herein does not arise as the entire appointment proceedings as VRA of the petitioner has been cancelled as an irregular appointment on administrative grounds only, but not any punishment measure as per the Rules in force. After due verification of the records examined the available material of documents produced by the petitioner and A.P. Village Revenue Assistant Rules, this respondent has concluded that the appointment of the petitioner vide Roc. No. 3/2019/C of the then Tahsildar, Gopalapuram is contrary to the G.O.Ms. No. 612 GA (Ser-A) Dept. dated 30.10.1991 read with Rule-8(3) in G.O.Ms. No. 531 Rev. (VO) Dept., dated 01.04.2005 and G.O.Ms. No. 1849 Revenue (VO) Dept., dated 28.10.2005. Accordingly, the appointment cancellation proceedings in Roc. No. 634/2019/C, dated 28.11.2019 holds good and stands correct. Hence the request of the petitioner cannot be countenanced and deserves no consideration and thus rejected the request of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner allegations in this regard are totally false. (VO) Dept., dated 01.04.2005 and G.O.Ms. No. 1849 Revenue (VO) Dept., dated 28.10.2005. Accordingly, the appointment cancellation proceedings in Roc. No. 634/2019/C, dated 28.11.2019 holds good and stands correct. Hence the request of the petitioner cannot be countenanced and deserves no consideration and thus rejected the request of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner allegations in this regard are totally false. This respondent always complied and obeyed the orders of this Court and never deliberately disobeyed or violated the orders of this Court. In view of the above, learned Government Pleader requests this Court to close this contempt case. 7. Rejoinder to the reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition contended that the respondent did not issued any notice seeking explanation from the petitioner after disposing of the writ petition. Prior to filing of the writ petition notice was issued by the respondent calling for explanation on 3 queries and the petitioner gave detailed explanation and answered. Thereafter proceedings were issued by the respondent and cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner in contrary to the reasons called for under show cause notice. It is further stated that on perusal of the proceedings the respondent rewrote the proceedings dated 28.11.2019 and in addition to the earlier proceedings the respondent added that the petitioner is not the adopted son. The respondent himself arrived at conclusion and determined that the adoption of the petitioner was not legal, that itself shows that the respondent passed orders as per his whims and fancies in contrary to the observations, which amounts to wilful violation of the orders of this Court. 8. Additional Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that on 14.7.2023 the matter was posted for orders in this case. At that stage this respondent counsel sought time for verifying the actual details of the order passed by this respondent. This respondent has gone through all the relevant particulars of the petitioner in this case and after gone through the entire material available and acted in true spirit of court orders dated 14.7.2023, by the reconsidering the case of the accordingly a detailed speaking order is issued to the petitioner on 28.07.2023. This respondent has acted in due diligence and considering all the relevant issues, passed the speaking order. If any caused inconvenience, this respondent sincerely apologise as the same is neither wilful nor wanton. This respondent has acted in due diligence and considering all the relevant issues, passed the speaking order. If any caused inconvenience, this respondent sincerely apologise as the same is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence, prayed to close this case. 9. As seen from the speaking order dated 28.07.2023 issued by the respondent vide Roc. No. 404/2022/A, it clearly mentioned that after due verification of the records, examined the available material of documents produced by the petitioner and Andhra Pradesh Village Revenue Assistant Rules 2005, the respondent has concluded that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 612 GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 30.10.1991 read with Rule-8(3) in G.O.Ms. No. 531 Rev. (VO) Dept. dated 01.04.2005 and G.O.Ms. No. 1849 Revenue (VO) Dept., dated 28.10.2005, and accordingly, the appointment cancellation proceedings dated 28.11.2019 is just and proper and the same hold good and same were issued after following due course of process. Accordingly the contents in the representation of the petitioner dated 18.7.2022 is not correct and deserves no consideration and thus rejected. It is further stated that the petitioner can prefer an appeal before the next appellate authority i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court observed that the Government has acted according to the rules and passed speaking orders on the representation filed by the petitioner and it is also observed that the implementation of the order of this Court has also been communicated to the petitioner. Hence, this Court deems fit to close the present contempt case. 11. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. If at all any grievance, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.