In a contempt case, petitioner sought punishment for violation of an order directing promotion consideration. Respondents argued delay was due to pending disciplinary charges. Court closed contempt case, finding no violation.
Contempt case closed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.1368 OF 2011 Dated 24-01-2013
Between:
Y.Sathi Reddy.
..Petitioner.
And: G.Anantha Ramu and another.
.Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.1368 OF 2011 O R D E R:
This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate and willful violation of the order dated 28th March, 2011 in W.P.M.P.No.7046 of 2011 in W.P.No.5651 of 2011 passed by this Court.
Originally, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.5651 of 2011 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Additional Divisional Engineer (Electrical).
Along with this writ petition, he also filed W.P.M.P.No.7046 of 2011 seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Additional Divisional Engineer (Electrical) by disposing of representation dated 8th December, 2010 pending W.P.No.5651 of 2011 on the file of this Court.
This Court on 28th March, 2011 made the following
order:
“There shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the representation, dated 8-122010 stated to have been submitted by the petitioner seeking for promotion to the post of Additional Divisional Engineer (Electrical) in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
In view of the non-compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the present Contempt Case is filed.
Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.
On 13.10.2011, this court issued notice before admission and thereafter, the matter underwent three adjournments and again this Contempt Case is listed to this day.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court on 28th March, 2011 in W.P.M.P.No.7046 of 2011 in W.P.No.5651 of 2011 has not been complied with. In this view of the matter, he seeks to punish the respondents for non-compliance of the said order passed by this Court.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by this Court on 28th March, 2011 was received in the office on 8-42011 along with the representation of the petitioner and that in due obedience to the order of this Court, speaking orders were issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 9-5-2011 stating that as per Reg.3(B)(ii) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-III which says that once charges have been framed and served on the concerned or show cause notice proposing the punishment is issued, such cases shall be considered for promotion in their due turn subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, it does not amount to non-compliance of the order of this Court and as such,
this Contempt Case may be closed.
A perusal of the counter filed by the respondents would also go to show that a memo dated 9-5-2011 was issued to the petitioner which says that once charges have been framed and served on the concerned or show cause notice proposing the punishment is issued, such cases shall be considered for promotion in their due turn subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings.
In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason that the petitioner has made out any case that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court and therefore, this Contempt Case is liable to be closed. Hence, this contempt case is closed. No costs.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Contempt Case, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH
Dated 24-01-2013 Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
CONTEMPT CASE No.1368 OF 2011 Dated 24-01-2013
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents violated the court order by delaying promotion consideration due to pending disciplinary proceedings.
Y. Sathi Reddy
G. Anantha Ramu
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
