Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 598 (AP)

INRE v. M. Shankar Redy

2023-03-17

BATTU DEVANAND

body2023
ORDER : 1. This Contempt Case has been initiated against the respondents suo motu. 2. While dealing with C.C.No.1197 of 2020 in W.P.No.14579 of 2019 on 16.07.2021, this Court passed the following order: “1. This Court ordered notice in Form-I to the respondents on 01.04.2021 and directed to post this matter on 29.04.2021. In view of the sudden spike of COVID-19, this Court dispensed with the appearance of the respondents on 29.04.2021 and posted the matter on 18.06.2021. On 18.06.2021, the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 are present before this Court, but the 3rd respondent did not appear. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the reason for non-appearance of the 3rd respondent is that, it is mentioned in Form-I notice issued to the 3rd respondent as extracted hereunder: “It is further informed that, in the event of implementing the order of this Court, the 3rd respondent need not appear before this Court.” 3. In the opinion of the Court, incorporating the above sentence in the standard format of Form-I notice prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act is nothing but interfering into the administration of justice and obstructing the constitutional functions of the Court.” 3. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to enquire into the matter and submit report. Accordingly, on 24.06.2021, the Registrar (Judicial) submitted report. As per his report, one Sri M. Shankar Reddy, A.S.O., Special Cell who drafted Form-I Notice and Sri P. Venkataramana, Deputy Registrar, who approved Form-I Notice, are responsible for issuing such notice contrary to the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the suo motu contempt case was initiated. 4. After hearing the learned Advocate General, notices are issued to the respondents on 30.07.2021. 5. The respondents filed their counter affidavits. 6. Accordingly, the Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh was directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the suo motu contempt case was initiated. 4. After hearing the learned Advocate General, notices are issued to the respondents on 30.07.2021. 5. The respondents filed their counter affidavits. 6. The Respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit averred that, due to acute shortage of manpower in the High Court, he was assigned the duties of drafter/typist, though he lacked touch type skills and since it is their collective responsibility to see that, by one way or the other the task is completed so that no scope is left where the Hon’ble Judges or the respected Advocates feel any sort of inconvenience across the Bench where they strive to achieve justice to the General Public at large i.e. due to delay on their part. He submitted that, he has opted for cut and copy working style i.e. from the earlier drafted orders and unfortunately, two irrelevant lines in the Form-I Notice were not been deleted by him and due to the mistake committed by him, the Court had to undergo an embarrassment situation in which he expressed deep regret. He assured to enhance his efforts and to be more careful and vigilant in future while discharging his duties. Finally, he requested to consider their pathetic working conditions and exonerate him in the contempt case. 7. The Respondent No.2 did not choose to file his counter affidavit. On 18.07.2022, he filed a memo of unconditional apology. In the said memo, it is stated that, originally he was working as Assistant Registrar of the High Court with effect from 01.01.2019 onwards. He is the Controlling Officer for Computer Section of the High Court and he is looking after the computer related works in respect of the High Court and Subordinate Courts in the State, including the e-Courts project. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar on 10.12.2020 and assigned the same duties as above as in-charge of the Computer Section. He further submitted that, there is no Section Officer, required staff members for Computer Section and a heavy burden lay on him as the Controlling Officer in attending all tasks. 8. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar on 10.12.2020 and assigned the same duties as above as in-charge of the Computer Section. He further submitted that, there is no Section Officer, required staff members for Computer Section and a heavy burden lay on him as the Controlling Officer in attending all tasks. 8. During Covid-19 pandemic period, from 10:00 AM onwards till 4:30 PM on each during, during Court hours, his entire attention is being focused on the virtual Court hearings, connectivity issues and e-filing issues in the High Court and the Subordinate Courts and due to the stress which he had undergone till that time in the computer related activities, the sentence which was inserted in the template for the sake of convenience of the drafter had skipped his attention due to heavy work pressure and it is humbly submitted that, such mistake is neither intentional nor wanton, but, it is due to inadvertence and pressure of work. He further submitted that, on that particular day alone, he attended to the work of approval of drafts in 55 cases, including turn duty cases. He is attending to the approvals meant for Assistant Registrar category due to lack of sufficient approving officers. Finally, he submits that, the lapse on his part is neither wilful nor wanton and tendered his unconditional apology for the same. He assured that, in future, he will bestow utmost care and caution in approving the drafts, giving no room for such complaints. 9. Heard the learned Advocate General and the respondents in person and perused the material available on record. 10. While dealing with C.C.No.1197 of 2020, this Court ordered Notice in Form-I to the respondents on 01.04.2021 and directed to post the matter on 29.04.2021. In view of the sudden spike of Covid-19, the appearance of the respondents was dispensed with on 29.04.2021 and posted to 18.06.2021. On 18.06.2021, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 are present before the Court, but the Respondent No.3 did not appear. 11. In view of the sudden spike of Covid-19, the appearance of the respondents was dispensed with on 29.04.2021 and posted to 18.06.2021. On 18.06.2021, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 are present before the Court, but the Respondent No.3 did not appear. 11. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 brought to the notice of this Court that, the reason for non-appearance of the Respondent No.3 is that, it is mentioned in the Form-I Notice issued to the Respondent No.3, the following sentence is added, as extracted hereinunder: “It is further informed that, in the event of implementing the order of this Court, the 3rd respondent need not appear before this Court.” 12. Incorporating the above sentence in the standard format of Form-I Notice prescribed under the Contempt of Court Act, in the opinion of the Court, is nothing but interfering into the administration of justice and obstructing the Constitutional functions of the Court. Under these circumstances, the present contempt case is registered. 13. On careful consideration of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 and the contents of the Memo filed by the Respondent No.2 and as per their oral submissions, the contention of the Respondent No.1 is that, he has lacked touch type skills and due to shortage of manpower, the duties of drafter/typist was assigned to him. As he is not having touch type skills, he opted the method of cut and paste and copy working style from the earlier draft orders. He admitted that, it is his mistake and assured to be more careful and vigilant in future in discharging his duties and requested to consider his pathetic condition to exonerate them from the contempt case. 14. The Respondent No.2 even did not choose to file a counter affidavit. Instead of that, he filed a memo of unconditional apology which is contrary to the procedure. In a contempt case, the respondent ought to have file his counter affidavit/reply. This respondent, is claiming 27 years of service in the High Court. It appears that he did not have atleast that knowledge to file counter affidavit. The reason stated by the respondent that, due to over burden of work, the mistake was committed, but it is not acceptable to this Court. 15. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. This respondent, is claiming 27 years of service in the High Court. It appears that he did not have atleast that knowledge to file counter affidavit. The reason stated by the respondent that, due to over burden of work, the mistake was committed, but it is not acceptable to this Court. 15. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 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. 16. In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, R & B., 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.” 17. In this contempt case, admittedly, the action of the respondents in inserting a sentence in the Form-I Notice which is not a part of the order of the Court amounts to Contempt of the Court. Even it is negligence and carelessness, it may amount to contempt, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (supra). 18. Respondent No.1 fairly accepted that, he lacked touch type skills and as such, he opted for cut and copy working style and unfortunately, two irrelevant lines in Form-I Notice were not being deleted and it is the mistake committed by him. He assured to enhance his efforts and to be more careful and vigilant in future while discharging his duties. He tendered his unconditional apology before this Court. The reasons stated by him and the tone and tenor in which he tendered unconditional apology appears to be bonafide, as such, this Court is accepting his unconditional apology and accordingly, the Contempt Case against Respondent No.1 is closed with a warning to be more careful in future to implement the orders of the Court while discharging his official duties. 19. 19. Though the Respondent No.1 committed mistake intentionally or unintentionally, the Respondent No.2 being a Senior Officer of the High Court who is discharging his duties of “approval”, it is his responsibility to take care to implement/obey the orders of the Court. The Respondent No.2 did not choose to file a counter affidavit/reply in this contempt case. He filed a memo tendering his unconditional apology, which is not acceptable to the Court. 20. During pronouncement of the order, the Respondent No.2 prayed the Court to permit him to file an affidavit for tendering unconditional apology. As per the permission granted, the Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology. This Court considered it as ‘bonafide’. 21. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, against Respondent No.2 with a warning to be cautious and vigilant in implementing the orders of the Court in future.