Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 121 (AP)

V. R. S. v. N. Sambasiva Rao VS V. Rama Krishna

2023-01-18

BATTU DEVANAND

body2023
JUDGMENT : BATTU DEVANAND, J. 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 05.03.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4703 of 2016. 2. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner is working as Part Time Junior Lecturer in Veeravasaram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. He filed W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 against the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services. 4. This Court disposed of the said W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 on 05.03.2020, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and held as follows: “In this case also, the undisputed fact is that the petitioner is working since 31.07.1993 continuously without any break and he has put in ten years of service by 10.04.2006 not under any interim order of the Court or the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization of his services as prayed for.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Orders passed by this Hon’ble Court on 05.03.2020, the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents seeking regularization of his services. But, the respondents neither passed any orders nor complied with the Orders of this Court in true spirit. Learned counsel submits that the respondent is deliberately flouting the orders of this Court on one pretext or the other. The failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. 6. The Respondent No. 1-Special Commissioner of Intermediate Education filed counter affidavit on 02.09.2021 stating that, against the order of learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 dated 05.03.2020, the respondents filed an appeal before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 489 of 2021 and the same was dismissed on 07.10.2021. Thereafter, the respondents preferred review I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.A. No. 489 of 2021 and the same is pending for adjudication. 7. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit on 01.04.2022 and submits that, the Government accorded permission to regularize the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents preferred review I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.A. No. 489 of 2021 and the same is pending for adjudication. 7. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit on 01.04.2022 and submits that, the Government accorded permission to regularize the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 communicated the said permission to the Regional Joint Director, Rajamundry and the Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education Rajamundry has issued regularization orders to the petitioner vide Proceedings Rc. No. 79/A2/2022 dated 30.03.2022. Respondent No. 1 submits that, due to filing of Writ Appeal and Review Petition, delay has occurred in complying the orders of the Court in W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 dated 05.03.2020, as such, the delay caused is not willful, intentional, deliberate and requested to close the contempt case. 8. The Respondent No. 2-Principal Secretary to Government filed counter affidavit on 02.09.2021 stating that, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 328 Education Department dated 15.10.1997 regularizing the services of Part-Time Junior Lecturers who have put in service of 360 days in 3 academic years as on 30.04.1991 or who have put in 600 days in 5 academic years as on 25.11.1993, adding another condition that the individuals must be continuing in service on 30.04.1991 or 25.11.1993, are eligible for regularization. The respondent submits that, the petitioner was working since 31.07.1993, as such he had completed 3 months and 25 days i.e. 116 days of service as on 25.11.1993, as such, he is not entitled to be regularized in terms of the said G.O. The request of the petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected by the respondent vide Memo No. 14371/IE/A2/2014 dated 28.04.2015. 9. Respondent No. 2 submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 directed and clarified that regularization should be one time measure and the same should be completed within six months from the date of decision of the case and the petitioner has not requested the respondents to regularize his services as per the rules in force, as such the relevance of Umadevi case cannot be applied. 10. Respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 18539 of 2013 to grant him M.T.S. under G.O.Ms. No. 362 dated 07.10.1994 and obtained interim order in his favour, but he did not meet the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 362 dated 07.10.1994. 10. Respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner earlier filed W.P. No. 18539 of 2013 to grant him M.T.S. under G.O.Ms. No. 362 dated 07.10.1994 and obtained interim order in his favour, but he did not meet the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms. No. 362 dated 07.10.1994. Pending consideration of W.P. No. 18539 of 2013, the petitioner again filed W.P. No. 4703 of 2016. The respondent submits that the petitioner has been filing writ petitions one after the other and consequent contempt cases to pressurize the respondents, even though there is no feasibility either to grant M.T.S. or to regularize his services. 11. The Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit on 01.04.2022 wherein, it is stated that, after receipt of notice in Form-I issued by this Court on 08.03.2022, he has issued orders in Memo No. 1167520/IE-A1/2020-4 dated 26.03.2022 according permission to the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P. to regularize the services of the petitioners subject to outcome of the Court cases pending in the matter and in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 05.03.2020. The said orders are communicated to the Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. 12. He further submits that, due to filing of Writ Appeal and Review Petition, delay has occurred in complying with the order dated 05.03.2020 in W.P. No. 4703 of 2016. The delay caused is not willful, intentional or deliberate. He submitted his unconditional apology for the delay caused in complying with the order of this Court. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 14. Admittedly, this Court while disposing of W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 on 05.03.2020, directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. Complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in not implementing the orders of the Court, the petitioner filed this contempt case. At the first instance, the respondents filed their counter affidavits on 02.09.2021 wherein, they made several contentions stating that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization. But, in the affidavits filed on 01.04.2022, it is stated that the services of the petitioner are regularized. 15. At the first instance, the respondents filed their counter affidavits on 02.09.2021 wherein, they made several contentions stating that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization. But, in the affidavits filed on 01.04.2022, it is stated that the services of the petitioner are regularized. 15. This Court noticed that there is difference between the stand of the respondents in filing the first counter affidavit on 02.09.2021 and as on the date of filing the second counter affidavit on 01.04.2022. 16. On consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and to decide whether the respondents had committed any contempt of the Court or not, in our view, it is appropriate to record the docket proceedings of this case on relevant dates when this contempt case was dealt by the then Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Venkataramana, the then Judge of this Court. Docket proceedings in C.C. No. 1012 of 2020 This Court passed the following Docket Orders on different dates, which are extracted herein-under: 16.07.2021 Heard Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents represents that steps have been taken in this matter and file an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. List this matter on 29.07.2021 “for compliance.” 29.07.2021 Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents requests time to comply with the orders of this Court. List this matter on 06.08.2021 “for compliance.” Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared online. 06.08.2021 Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of granting time, obviously, the respondents did not comply with the directions of this Court. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents, requested further time by two (02) weeks. Even after giving sufficient time, since no purpose is served and apparently the respondents are resorting to delaying the matter further, it is desirable to issue Form-I Notice in this matter. List on 03.09.2021. 03.09.2021 Mr. V. Rama Krishna and Mr. B. Raja Sekhar, both the contemnors are in attendance. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared online. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents also appeared online and informed that the Order in W.P. No. 703 of 2016 dated 05.03.2020 was suspended by the Order dated 01.09.2021 in W.A. No. 489 of 2021 till 14.09.2021. List this matter on 01.10.2021. Both the contemnors shall be in attendance on that day. Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the respondents also appeared online and informed that the Order in W.P. No. 703 of 2016 dated 05.03.2020 was suspended by the Order dated 01.09.2021 in W.A. No. 489 of 2021 till 14.09.2021. List this matter on 01.10.2021. Both the contemnors shall be in attendance on that day. 10.12.2021 It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Writ Appeal No. 489 of 2021 was dismissed on 07.10.2021. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the respondents, requests time for compliance. List on 24.12.2021. 24.12.2021 Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the respondents did not attend the Court. List on 31.12.2021. 31.12.2021 At request of Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the respondents, list on 21.01.2022. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel for the respondents represents that a review application was filed in Writ Appeal No. 489 of 2021. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner seriously opposed grant of time, stating that, after seeking time to implement the order of this Court, the respondents are unnecessarily delaying the mater in this contempt proceedings. 17. After retirement of Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Venkataramana, this contempt case is assigned to this Court by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thereafter, it is listed on 08.03.2022. On that day, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the respondents, this Court prima facie opined that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents and accordingly, issued notice in Form-I. Thereafter, this case was listed on 06.04.2022. Just before listing of the case for appearance of the respondents, they came up with an affidavit dated 01.04.2022 stating that they implemented the orders of the Court and took stand that the reason for delay in implementing the order of this Court is due to filing of writ appeal and review petition before the Division Bench. 18. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 19. 18. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 19. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1999 SC 3215 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt. 20. In the District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, 1996 (2) ALD Cri. 844, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder: “8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt of Court.” 21. The prefatory remarks of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 1795 as extracted hereunder would well project the importance of the issue under consideration in this suo motu contempt case: “1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. At Para Nos. 7 and 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “7. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. At Para Nos. 7 and 8, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “7. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples.” The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General vs. Times Newspapers 1974 A.C. 273 at Page 302: “In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted.” 8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.” 22. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.” 22. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder: “Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government departments are no exception to it.” 23. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: “It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.” 24. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others vs. Hirak Ghosh and Others, 2002 Cri. L.J. 1814 the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3016 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3016 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. 26. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao, MANU/AP/0136/2012 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder: “9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court. 10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is not in the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts. 23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court.” 27. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents are found guilty of the offence committed for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, which is punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 28. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the respondents, post on 18.01.2023. 29. The respondents shall present before this Court on 18.01.2023. 30. 28. To hear with regard to the sentence to be imposed to the respondents, post on 18.01.2023. 29. The respondents shall present before this Court on 18.01.2023. 30. When the Court asked the respondents as to why they should not be punished for non-compliance of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 4703 of 2016 dated 05.03.2020, they tendered unconditional apology and prayed the Court to pardon them. 31. On perusal of the earlier proceedings of this Court, as extracted hereinabove, the respondents sought adjournments number of times for compliance and taking advantage of adjourning the cases, they preferred appeal and after dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench, again sought time for compliance and again filed review petition. 32. Showing the pendency of the writ appeal and review petition, order of the Court is not complied with. This type of tactics by the respondents to avoid to implement the orders of the Court cannot be tolerated and the action of the respondents would amount to contempt of court. Under these circumstances, the apology tendered by the respondents is not acceptable and in the opinion of this Court, it is not bona-fide. 33. Besides this, if any lenient view is taken against such type of offences, who are not implementing the orders of this Court years together and implementing Court orders only after directing their appearance before the Court, in the opinion of this Court, it will send wrong message to such type of Government Officers. 34. 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.” 35. 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.” 35. A Nine Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has recognized the superior status of the High Court as a Court of plenary jurisdiction being a Court of Record and held in Naresh Sridhar Mirajakar and Others vs. State of Maharastra and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1 as extracted hereunder: “High Court as a Court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A Court of record empowered all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of record is undoubtedly a superior Court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it, the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regard is plenary.” 36. In the light of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), this Court vested with the power to punish the Contemnors not only under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 but also this Court empowered to punish the Contemnors under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 37. After hearing the Contemnors with regard to quantum of sentence and keeping the nature of the offence into mind, in the opinion of this Court that in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court is passing the following order. 38. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnors are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven (07) days. 39. 38. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed and the Contemnors are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven (07) days. 39. After pronouncement of order of sentence, the contemnors again prayed to pardon them considering their age and health condition. They also assured to be more careful in future in implementing the Court orders. 40. This Court after considering their age and health condition, the sentence imposed is modified on humanitarian grounds as under. 41. The contemnors are sentenced for imprisonment till raising of the Court today and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for seven (07) days.