Disposed

K.v.v.S.Ch.Sekhar v. Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2024CC/2875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition for violation of an order regarding reinstatement, the Court held that since the respondents had complied with the order and tendered an unconditional apology, the contempt case is closed without costs, granting liberty to challenge subsequent proceedings on pay and leave.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed without costs; liberty granted to petitioner to challenge subsequent proceedings if filed.

K.v.v.S.Ch.Sekhar Vs Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2875 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondents herein for intentional, willful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.l of 2022 in W.P. No.42513 of 2022 on 02.01.2023, punish the respondents herein suitably.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.V.V.S.Ch.Sekhar, S/o Samba Murthy, 49 Years, E.601281, Driver, D.No.14-100, Konerupeta, Morampudi Centre, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District-533107

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, Commissioner, Public Transport Department and Ex Officio Managing Director, APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada.

¶12

Smt.Shaik Shabnam, Depot Manager, APSRTC Rajamahendravaram depot. East Godavari District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AG SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA The Court made the following ORDER :

¶16

APHC010233532023

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

[3329]

¶19

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶20

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶23

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2875/2023

Between:

K.v.v.s.ch.sekhar

...PETITIONER

AND

Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao and Others

¶29

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

A G SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶32

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶33

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^{counselforthe} Respondents.

¶37

This contempt case is filed against the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the orders dated 02.01.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.42513 of 2022.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents have reinstated the petitioner into service and complied with the orders dated

¶39

02.01.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022^{inW.P.No.42513of2022.} He further submits that while reinstating the petitioner into service, the Respondents/ the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Zone-1, Visakhapatnam passed an order vide proceedings No.PA/20(62)/24-Dy.CME-VSP, dated 16.08.2024, wherein it is observed that the petitioner’s pay shall be reduced by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. It^{isfurtherstatedthatthe} period from the date of removal of the petitioner to till the date of reinstatement, the petitioner reports for duty is treated as “Not on Duty” for the purpose of leave and increments.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner further sought for liberty of this Court to challenge the Respondents proceedings or subsequent proceedings or for filing appropriate petition, if any.

¶41

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Respondents have complied with the orders of this Court and brought^{tothenoticeofthis} Court that, pending Writ Petition i.e.W.P.No.42513 of 2022, the Respondents have passed a separate order vide proceedings dated 16.08.2024 and reinstated the petitioner into service. He further^tendered his unconditional apology on behalf of the Respondents for causing abnormal delay in complying the orders of this Court. 6. In view of the compliance of the orders of this Court^{andunconditional} apology tendered by the Respondents, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case.

¶42

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed and the petitioner is granted

¶43

liberty to challenge the proceedings, if any or subsequent proceedings by filing

¶44

appropriate petition, if any. No costs.

¶45

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt

¶46

case shall stand closed.

¶47

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

KSECTION OFFICER

To,

Sri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao, Commissioner Public Transport Department and Ex Officio Managing Director, APSRTC, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada.

¶52

Smt.Shaik Shabnam, Depot Manager, APSRTC Rajamahendravaram depot, East Godavari District.

¶53

One CC to Sri. A G Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

THREE CD COPIES

¶56

TAC

¶57

HIGH COURT DATED: 12/09/2024

¶58

ORDER

¶59

CC.No.2875 of 2023

¶60

andha^%
17 NOV 20?.‘i If

¶61

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

K.v.v.S.Ch.Sekhar v. Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.v.S.Ch.Sekhar v. Shri Ch.Dwaraka Tirumala Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chittor Aravind Vs the Union of India

Kallam Ramanji Reddy Vs B.Raja Sekhar,Ias

Kantheti Kishore Raju, Vs The Union of India

K Kambagiri Swamy Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar IAS

Kalla Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Ch Sekhar Vs Shri Ch Dwaraka Tirumala Rao