Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 557 (AP)

Kurri Shiva Nagi Reddy v. M T Krishna Babu Ias

2024-05-09

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2024
ORDER Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Contempt Case is submitted to punish the respondents under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience and violation of the order of this Court dated 17.08.2023 in Writ Petition No.15809 of 2021. 2. The writ of mandamus is filed to declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent, i.e., Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh Vidya Vidhana Parishad (hereinafter called, 'Vidhana Parishad'), in absorbing the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad, working in the Directorate of Health and as the Directorate of Medical Education despite lapse of period of 14 years since the submission of his option and also considering his case. 3. The respondents in the Writ Petition filed their response and agitated that the petitioner was not absorbed in the Vidhana Parishad, as he has not submitted his option in time and therefore his case was not considered. 4. Demurrer to the contentions raised by the respondents, the petitioner has filed proceedings No.17262/C2/2008 dated 09.11.2013, stating that the Government issued several orders extending the time for absorption of the employees into Vidhana Parishad. Therefore, the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has not submitted the option in time is far from truth and prayed to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad. 5. This Court, by order dated 17.08.2023, has disposed of the Writ Petition with a positive direction to the respondents to consider for absorption of the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad. 6. As the respondents have not absorbed the petitioner, as directed by this Court, the writ petitioner has filed the present Contempt Case to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. On receiving notices, the 2nd respondent has filed response to the Contempt Case in the following manner: (1) The Government has issued proceedings, vide ordinance No.8 of 2008 and G.O.Ms.No.316 dated 25.08.2008 calling for options duly informing that all interested employees working under the control of Directorate of Health and Directorate of Medical Education into Vidhana Parishad. The petitioner by name Dr. K.Shiva Nagi Reddy has not submitted his option during that time. The petitioner by name Dr. K.Shiva Nagi Reddy has not submitted his option during that time. (2) Subsequently, the Government has issued orders, vide G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 13.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 20.07.2018 transferring 122 + 5 hospitals from the administrative control of the Director of Public Health to Commissioner, Vidhana Parishad and as per the policy decision of the Government, options were called for from the employees working in the above 127 hospitals and all the specialist doctors working in DSH facilities (formerly APVVP) as on 01.04.2018. Thus, the petitioner has not worked in 127 hospitals and has not been absorbed into Vidhana Parishad and the case of the petitioner was examined in detail and was rejected for absorption by way of speaking order dated 06.12.2023 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. (3) While the employee/Director who worked in 127 hospitals were absorbed into Vidhana Parishad, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 8 of the A.P.Civil Servies (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for involving in a criminal case, as such, the petitioner was not absorbed into Vidhana Parishad. (4) Along with the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has filed speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for absorption into Vidhana Parishad, vide proceedings dated 06.12.2023. The relevant portion of the said speaking order is hereby extracted as follows: "Government orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.48, HM&FW(C2) Department, dated 16.02.2010 were not materialized and could not be implemented. Government permitted to absorb the services of all the willing and eligible employees of 127 hospitals along the services of all the specialist doctors already working in terms conditions of Deputation on foreign Service in APVVP facilities vide G.O.Ms.No.124, HM&FW(B1) Dept., dt.13.10.2015 cited in year 2018. Options were called for from the employees working in the 127 hospitals functioning under the control of the Director of Public Health transferred to the administrative control of Commissioner, APVVP during 2018. Dr.K.Siva Nagi Reddy, Dental Assistant Surgeon was not in the zone of consideration as he was not working in those hospitals as on the specified date. (5) The individual approached Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in O.A.No.2711 of 2014 which was disposed at the admission stage in the year 2014. Dr.K.Siva Nagi Reddy, Dental Assistant Surgeon was not in the zone of consideration as he was not working in those hospitals as on the specified date. (5) The individual approached Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in O.A.No.2711 of 2014 which was disposed at the admission stage in the year 2014. Again the above doctor approached Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.15089 of 2021 in which the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, basing up on the applications filed by the petitioner for absorption in to concerned department where the petitioner is entitled for absorption. In obedience to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the entire issue is examined in detail and in view of the facts and circumstances explained in pre paras, it is here by informed that it is not feasible to absorb the services of the individual into APVVP (presently Director of Secondary Health, AP). 8. Heard learned counsel for the contempt petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court has passed the orders with a specific direction to absorb the petitioner into Vidhana Parishad and a similarly situated doctor on par with the petitioner also filed a Writ Petition before this Court vide W.P.No.21010 of 2021 for the very same relief and his case was considered and the case of the petitioner herein was not considered, which shows the willful disobedience of the orders of this Court by the respondents. 10. And also stated that Writ Appeal No.388 of 2024 was filed against the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15809 of 2021 and the same was disposed of as infructuous and the order of this Court was not disturbed in the intra-court appeal. Despite dismissing of the Writ Appeal as infructuous, the respondents have not implemented the orders of this Court, the attitude of the respondents towards the orders of this Court manifests that the respondents do not want to implement the order of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner urged this Court to punish 2nd respondent-Commissioner for violating the orders of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. 11. Therefore, the petitioner urged this Court to punish 2nd respondent-Commissioner for violating the orders of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the reply averments and argued in the following manner: (1) The petitioner has not submitted his option in time, as such, his case was not considered; (2) As per the policy decision of the Government, the Vidhana Parishad has absorbed the employees who worked in 127 hospitals and the petitioner has not worked in any of 127 hospitals, as such, his case was not considered; and (3) The petitioner was suspended from the service in the year 2015 while the doctors who are worked in 127 hospitals were absorbed into the Vidhana Parishad and he was reinstated into service in the year 2019, therefore his case was not considered. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 291 for the proposition that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. And stated that on the direction of this Court, the respondent-authorities have passed an order dated 06.12.2023, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is not feasible to absorb the individual into Vidhana Parishad. Therefore, if the petitioner is so aggrieved, he has to assail the order dated 06.12.2023 and they cannot maintain the contempt case. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Snehasis Giri and others v. Subhasis Mitra, 2023 (2) Scale 520 for the proposition that the Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction cannot traverse beyond the four corners of the judgment or order alleged to have been flouted or examine questions which have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment of which violation is alleged. 14. On the basis of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Vidhana Parishad, the question which is to be decided by this is, whether the 2nd respondent has flouted the orders of this Court or not? 15. 14. On the basis of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Vidhana Parishad, the question which is to be decided by this is, whether the 2nd respondent has flouted the orders of this Court or not? 15. The first defence was raised by the respondents in the Contempt Case by way of response is that the petitioner has not filed his option to absorb into Vidhana Parishad and the said issue was answered in the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to absorb into Vidhana Parishad. 16. Now the respondents have come up with incongruous defence in the counter filed in the Contempt Case that the Government has absorbed all the employees who worked in 127 hospitals working under the Director of Medical and Health as per the policy decision and the petitioner has not worked in any one of 127 hospitals. As seen from the proceedings in Rc.No.006299/VC.I.B/2015 dated 01.06.2015, it divulges that the petitioner worked as Dental Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre (CHC), Gannavaram, which is one of 127 hospitals and the doctors who worked in the said hospital have been absorbed by the Vidhana Parishad. 17. Now the 2nd respondent's counsel would raise a new contention that the petitioner has suspended during the absorption and he was reinstated in 2019, as such, the petitioner was not absorbed. No such plea was taken in the reply filed to the Contempt Case or in additional counter or have filed any document to substantiate that the petitioner was suspended at relevant point of time. 18. On perusal of the proceedings dated 01.06.2015, it reflects that the petitioner was suspended under Rule 8 of the A.P. (CCA) Rules, 1991. 19. The ground that the petitioner has not worked in any one of 127 hospitals where the doctors who worked in 127 hospitals have been absorbed into Vidhana Parishad as policy decision and the petitioner was suspended at that time was taken first time in reply to the Contempt Case. 20. The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court. 20. The action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned order/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court. This has been succinctly laid down by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commr., (1978) 1 SCC 405 as follows: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. The observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 (SCC p. 1095, para 9) '9.. public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 21. Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in J.S.Parihar's case (1 supra) and in Snehasis Giri's case (2 supra) have no application to the facts of the present case for the reason that a positive direction was given by the Court to absorb the petitioner and if the respondents having been aggrieved by the order, filed intra-court appeal and the same was dismissed and the said order was not disturbed in the appeal and the 2nd respondent cannot pass an order rejecting to absorb the petitioner as the 2nd respondent is not appellate authority to sit over against an order of this Court, when this Court ordered a positive order to absorb the petitioner. 22. 22. The second judgment in Snehasis Giri's case (2 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel has not expounded to this Court the application of that judgment to the facts of this case, in fact that judgment is in favour of the petitioner and the said judgment speaks that the High Court in a Contempt Case not go beyond the four corners of the order. 23. The next question which arises for consideration is, whether non-implementation of the order is willful or intentional to punish the 2nd respondent under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. 24. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the word 'willful' means - if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies an evil intent or with bad motive of purpose. 25. The 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya, 2022 SCC Online SC 826, in clear terms, held as follows: "Apart from punishing the contemnor for his contumacious conduct, the majesty of law may demand that appropriate directions be issued by the Court so that any advantage secured as a result of such contumacious conduct is completely nullified. The approach may require the Court to pass directions either for reversal of the transactions in question by declaring the said transactions to be void or passing appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to set that the contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor does not continue to enure to the advantage of the contemnor or any one claiming under him." 26. This Court several times has given several opportunities to the respondents for implementation of the order so as to enure to the contemnor to prevent the contumacious conduct. 27. This Court several times has given several opportunities to the respondents for implementation of the order so as to enure to the contemnor to prevent the contumacious conduct. 27. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Mukherjee v. Heromoni Mondal and another, (1991) 1 SCC 397 , it is held in the following manner: "We should like to put out a warning that where a case of willful disobedience is made out, the courts will not hesitate and will convict delinquent officer and that no lenience in the court's attitude should be expected from the court as a matter of course merely on the ground that an order of conviction would damage the service career of the concerned officer." 29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.B.Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600 recording the apology, it is held that it is well settled that an apology is neither a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. The tendering of apology is not satisfactory, in the opinion of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that not implementing the order of this Court is willful intention, as they have taken inconsistent pleas contrary to the counter filed in the Writ Petition. Even the contentions raised in the counter affidavit have not been established and the contentions raised in the reply affidavit in the contempt case are made only to avoid implementation of the orders of this Court, which is a clear willful obedience. 30. Even the contentions raised in the counter affidavit have not been established and the contentions raised in the reply affidavit in the contempt case are made only to avoid implementation of the orders of this Court, which is a clear willful obedience. 30. Taking incongruous defences would indicate that the 2nd respondent don't want to comply the order of this Court, which is affront to this Court and any inconsistent defences would result in the order being cancelled, if any contention is considered. 31. It is palpable from the material on record that disobedience is voluntary, having knowledge of the order of the Court and its implications, but ignores it. As discussed supra, taking inconsistent difences which reflect the intention of the respondents not to implement the order which amounts willful and deliberate disobedience, as such the respondents are liable for punishment. 32. Respondents 1 to 3 are held guilty for willful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.No.15809 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each and respondent No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One month and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and, in default of payment of fine, respondents shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. The respondents 1 & 3 shall pay the fine on or before 23.05.2024. 33. The 2nd respondent shall surrender before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, within a period of two (2) weeks from today, i.e. on or before 23.05.2024 before 5.00 p.m. and pay the fine amount and, on such surrender, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to commit the contemnor/respondent No.2 to judicial custody to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. 34. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this case, shall stand closed.