Dismissed

Muddapappu Venugopal v. Dr Poonam Malakondaiah, I.A.S.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2022CC/1747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the High Court acquitted respondents of contempt charges for violating an interim stay order regarding government promotions. The court held that the charge of intentional disobedience was not proved because the court order was not officially communicated to the respondents before the promotions were effected. The judgment emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of contempt pro

What did the court decide?

The contemnor respondents are acquitted of the charge of contempt of court; the contempt case is closed.

Muddapappu Venugopal Vs Dr Poonam Malakondaiah… — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1747 OF 2021

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Heard Smt T.V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. Sumon, learned counsel assisted by Smt J. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶5

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 05.10.2020 granted in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.17907 of 2020.

¶6

Writ Petition No.17907 of 2020 was filed challenging the Memo No.AGRI0AEST/239/Agri.I92)/2019, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶7

By memo dated 23.09.2020, the Government relaxed the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.16, Agriculture and Cooperation (FRI) Department dated 21.01.2000 read with G.O.Ms.No.1 A & C (Agri.I) Department dated 03.01.2017, in favour of fifteen left over Non Agricultural Extension Officers, (names mentioned therein), for considering their cases for promotions to the post of Agricultural Officers, as a special case.

¶8

Vide interim order dated 05.10.2020, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020, this Court provided as under:

¶9

“There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Memo No.AGR10AEST/239/Agri.I(2)/2019, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent until further orders.”

¶10

Perusal of the interim order shows that all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned memo dated 23.09.2020 were stayed until further orders.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interim order dated 05.10.2020 was communicated on the very same day to the

¶12

¶13

respondents vide representation dated 05.10.2020, with request to them not to effect the promotions, but inspite thereof the respondents 1 and 2 implemented the Memo dated 23.09.2020 and issued promotion orders to the Agriculture Extension Officers in Zone-III on 05.10.2020 and in Zone-IV on 06.10.2020 and the respondents in the contempt case allowed the respondents 10 to 13 in the writ petition, to join as Agriculture Extension Officers on 08.10.2020 and 07.10.2020.

¶14

By order dated 03.12.2021, Form-I notice was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 directing them to appear in person before this Court to show cause as to why they be not punished or other appropriate order be not passed against them for contempt of the order dated 05.10.2020. 9. Sri C. Suman, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah, Special Chief Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Andhra Pradesh, submits that pursuant to the memo dated 23.09.2020, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur issued proceedings No.AII (2)320/2020, dated 25.09.2020 for Zone-III, Proceedings No.AGC0232022(36)/5/2019, dated 28.09.2020 for Zone-II and Proceedings No.AII(3)375/2020, dated 01.10.2020 for Zone-IV. The copy of the court’s order was received in his office on 11.11.2020. By that time all the proceedings were mailed to the concerned officers and they had reported in the stipulated time in the promotion post i.e., prior to the receipt of the Court’s order dated 05.10.2020. He further submits that in view of the interim stay order, the order issued in Memo No.AGRIOAEST/239/Agri.I(2)/2019 dated 23.09.2020 was kept in abeyance, until final orders, to be passed in the writ petition, vide government memo dated 03.1.2022.

¶15

¶16

Sri C. Suman, further submits for the respondent No.2-H. Arun Kumar, Commissioner of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur as well that in fact promotions were effected in Zone-III on 25.09.2020 and in Zone-IV on 01.10.2020. The interim order was granted on 05.10.2020. The copy of the order was received on 09.11.2020. By which date, the entire process of promotions were completed. The inward section which maintains the records do not show the entry of the said representation dated 05.10.2020, as stated by the petitioner/applicant. A representation, along with the copy of the order was received on 09.11.2020 only.

¶17

The stand of both the respondents is that the promotions had been made in Zone-III on 28.09.2020 and in Zone-IV on 01.10.2020 i.e prior to the passing of the interim order dated 05.10.2020; and the promotees had joined on 06.10.2020 and 07.10.2020, prior to service of the copy of the interim order, provided on 09.11.2020/11.11.2020. As such there is no willful disobedience of the order dated 05.10.2020. the respondents have also tendered unconditional apology.

¶18

It is undisputed that the copy of the interim order was served to the respondents on 09.11.2020/11.11.2020 and prior to service of the copy of the interim order, the promotions had already been made and those promotees had already joined.

¶19

Now the point for consideration is the communication of the order to the respondents on 05.10.2020, vide petitioner’s alleged representation dated 05.10.2020.

¶20

A perusal of the representation dated 05.10.2020, (at page 11 of the contempt case) itself shows that the same is addressed to the 2^nd respondent-Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Chuttugunta Centre, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh only. It is not addressed to the 1^st respondent nor the copy thereof is endorsed to the 1^st respondent.

¶21

¶22

Further perusal of the above representation shows that it does not bear any initial/signature of any person to show as to who received it for or on behalf of respondent No.2. Even in the affidavit the name of any such person is not disclosed.

¶23

The respondents have filed three affidavits pursuant to the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in the contempt case. 17. In the first affidavit filed by Sri P. Sudhakaran, Administrative Officer in the office of the Advocate General, A.P. High Court, Amaravati, it has been deposed, in para 5 thereof, that the interim order dated 05.10.2020 was communicated to the Liasioning Officer of the concerned department on 05.10.2022 at 12.50 p.m. In the second affidavit by Sri S. Doondi Eswara Rao, the Liasoning Officer, in para 5, it has been deposed that after receiving the message regarding the interim order dated 05.10.2020 through SMS, he communicated the same to the Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration) on 05.10.2020 at 4.26 p.m; and in the third affidavit filed by Smt N. Padmavathi, the Joint Director of Agriculture (I/c. Administration) in the office of Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Gunture, Andhra Pradesh, in para 5, it has been deposed that the interim order dated 05.10.2020, though received by her but could not be informed to the Commissioner, under some wrong impression as mentioned in para 5 of the affidavit, for which the deponent of the third affidavit has tendered unconditional apology.

¶24

From the aforesaid, it is evident i) the 1^st respondent Dr.Poonam Malakondaiah was not communicated the order dated 05.10.2020 even vide representation dated 05.10.2020, ii) it is not established on the material before this court that there was service of even the representation dated 05.10.2020 regarding communication of the order dated 05.10.2020 by the applicant on the respondent No.2, iii) the

¶25

¶26

respondents could not be shown to have received any information of the order dated 05.10.2020 even otherwise.

¶27

In Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the proceedings of contempt are quasi-criminal in nature. In a case where the order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding of the meaning and purport of the order, unless it is intentional, no charge of contempt can be brought home. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. It has been further held that burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, is the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings. Charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It would be hazardous to impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities.

¶28

It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 15 to 20 of Sahdeo (supra) as under:

¶29

“15. The proceedings of contempt are quasi-criminal in nature. In a case where the order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake, inadvertence or by mis-understanding of the meaning and purport of the order, unless it is intentional, no charge of contempt can be brought home. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. (Vide B.K. Kar Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1367).

¶30

Similarly, in Debabrata Bandopadhyay & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 189, this Court has observed as under:-

¶31

"A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as

¶32

1 (2010) 3 SCC 705

¶33

¶34

great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished......... Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."

¶35

The same view has been re-iterated by this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board & Ors. Vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1767; Dushyant Somal (Capt.) Vs. Smt Sushma Somal & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1026; M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 127; Niaz Mohammed & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, (1994) 6 SCC 332; and Manish Gupta & Ors. Vs. Gurudas Roy, (1995) 3 SCC 559.

¶36

The Constitution Bench of this Court, in The State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221, held that the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short `the Act, 1971') deal with the willful defiance of the order passed by the Court. Order of punishment be not passed if the Court is satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order or there was an unintentional wrong for the reason that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the order but conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.

¶37

In Sukhdev Singh Vs. Hon'ble C.J.S. Teja Singh & the Hon'ble Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala, AIR 1954 SC 186, this Court placing reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council in Andre Paul Terence Ambard Vs. The Attorney - General of Trinidad and Tabago, AIR 1936 PC 141, held that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature and orders passed in those proceedings are to be treated as orders passed in criminal cases.

¶38

In S. Abdul Karim Vs. M.K. Prakash & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 859, Chhotu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 530; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. Vs. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1405; Daroga Singh & Ors. Vs. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26; and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. L.K. Tripathi & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1314, this Court held that burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, is

¶39

¶40

the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings, for the reason that contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature.

¶41

Similarly, in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. Vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293, this Court placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, including, V.G. Nigam & Ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 215; and Murray & Co. Vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 833, held that jurisdiction of the contempt has been conferred on the Court to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, but in the case of quasi- criminal in nature, charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and alleged contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt. It would be very hazardous to impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities.”

¶42

21. In T.C. Gupta vs. Bimal Kumar Dutta and others² , it has been

¶43

reiterated that contempt action being in the nature of quasi criminal proceeding the degree of satisfaction that must be reached by the court to hold a person guilty of commission of contempt would be akin to what is required to prove a criminal charge, viz., proof beyond reasonable doubt. The order of the court in respect of which violation is alleged must, therefore, be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal and defiance thereof must be apparent on the very face of the action with which a contemnor is charged.

¶44

In the present case, the further proceedings may be violative of the interim order dated 05.10.2020, as by that order further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo dated 23.09.2020 were stayed, but that violation, in view of what is held above regarding non service and non communication of the order dated 05.10.2020 to the respondents cannot be termed intentional, willful or deliberate.

¶45

The charge framed against the respondents is not proved. They are acquitted of the charge of contempt of the order dated 05.10.2020. The consequences to follow.

¶46

2 2014(14) SCC 46

¶47

¶48

Before parting, it needs reiteration that the orders passed by this Court are to be complied with in letter and sprit. The compliance should not be dependant upon the communication of the order or service of the copy of the order, by the petitioners/applicants. When the court passes an order after hearing the counsel for the State as well, it is the bounden duty of the State counsels as well to duly communicate the order of the court in time and to the competent authority responsible to ensure compliance. The concern of this Court is to ensure compliance of the court’s order and that it is not flouted or disobeyed even unintentionally on the plea of non service of copy of the order or its non communication.

¶49

In this case the order dated 05.10.2020 was communicated by the Government Pleader to the Lisioning Officer, who in turn communicated it to the Joint Director of Agriculture (IC Administration) on 05.10.2020 itself, but the Joint Director of Agriculture did not further communicate it to the respondents herein. The order dated 05.10.2020 was violated on 06.10.2020/07.10.2020 as the promotees were allowed joining after 05.10.2020, if the order had been duly communicated in time to the respondents herein, the violation thereof might not have occurred. The respondents in the writ petition joined inspite of the interim order dated 05.10.2020 which was passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶50

This Court fails to understand as to why the order dated 05.10.2020 was not communicated directly to the competent authority/respondents herein, responsible to implement the same in letter and sprit and as to why the Joint Director Agriculture did not bring it to the notice of the respondents when the said Joint Director received communication of the order dated 05.10.2020 on 05.10.2020 itself.

¶51

¶52

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to do the needful to ensure that in future, the orders passed by this court in which the Government Pleader is appearing are duly communicated to the competent authority in time, which will ensure the compliance of the court order and no violation thereof on the ground of non communication of the order.

¶53

Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, leaving it open to him to take such action as may be open under law against the Joint Director of Agriculture (I/c Administration) in the office of Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶54