Disposed

Mohammad Abdul Rehman, Visakhapatnam Dist. v. Rear Admiral L.V. Sarath Babu, Visakhpatnam and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Sept 2021CC/1898/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt case dismissed after respondents apologized and clarified they would not deny statutory retirement benefits. Petitioner allowed to challenge the fresh dismissal order separately.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; respondents undertook not to deny statutory benefits pending any future challenge.

What the court decided

Mohammad Abdul Rehman, Visakhapatnam Dist. Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1898 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.1261 of 2006 being aggrieved by the orders of dismissal from service passed by the respondents.

¶4

This Court by an order dated 27.12.2016 had held that the penalty of removal and dismissal is disproportionate and directed the disciplinary authorities to reconsider the matter to the limited extent of the punishments imposed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents had passed a fresh order dated 22.05.2017 which reconfirmed the earlier order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this contempt case on the ground that the said order is in violation of the directions of this Court.

¶5

The respondents appeared through counsel and submitted that they had misunderstood the order of this Court and sought time to rectify their mistake. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has passed an order dated 25.08.2021 modifying the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order has pointed out that the operative part of the order dated 25.08.2021 states that the petitioner is being awarded the punishment of “compulsory retirement with effect from

¶7

¶8

02.04.2005 without any effect of statutory retirement benefits” . He submits that this would mean that the respondents are only changing the nominal nature of the punishment while effectively imposing the same punishment of dismissal.

¶9

Sri Shravan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the intention of the 2^nd respondent is otherwise and it is only being made clear that compulsory retirement will not amount to denial of the retirement benefits that have to be paid to the petitioner. He states that all retirement benefits, payable as per the order of 24.08.2021 would be paid.

¶10

In view of the specific statement of the learned counsel, on instructions, and in view of the changed order and apology tendered by the respondents, this contempt case is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the fresh order dated 25.08.2021, if he so chooses. It is made further clear that if any such challenge is made by the petitioners the respondents shall not deny the payment of statutory benefits to the petitioner, on the ground of the pendency of that challenge.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶13

20.09.2021 SDP

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

CONTEMPT CASE No.1898 of 2017

¶17

20-09-2021

¶18

SDP

Mohammad Abdul Rehman, Visakhapatnam Dist. v. Rear Admiral L.V. Sarath Babu, Visakhpatnam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Mohammad Abdul Rehman, Visakhapatnam Dist. v. Rear Admiral L.V. Sarath Babu, Visakhpatnam and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswaraa Educational Society Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veda Prakash Educational Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gooli Ramireddy Vs Dy.Commr/Endoments/Kurnool and Another

G.Sudha Rani, Vs Sri K.Anil Kumar Singhal

K. Sri Rama Murthy, Vs Sri Rajath Bhargav

V Badri Nath Vs Sri Rajat Bhargava