Disposed

Duba Venkata Ramana v. S.Murali

Telangana HC23 Jan 2013CC/2138/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Contempt Court addressed an allegation that the respondent failed to comply with its order dated 11.11.2011 regarding a dispute over termination of services. The court found the appeal decided by the subordinate authority had already been disposed of, finding no case for contempt and closeing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed with directions to serve a copy of the authority's order dated 15.02.2012 on the petitioner.

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs S.Murali — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE NO. 2138 OF 2012

¶3

Between:

¶4

Duba Venkata Ramana.

¶5

………….Petitioner AND

¶6

Sri Murali, Chief Executive Officer, Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), Officer of Commissioner of Rural Development, Adarshnagar, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad.

¶7

………….Respondent

¶8

Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondent herein in complying with the orders passed by this Court on 11.11.2011 in W.P.No.29959 of 2011.

¶11

Originally, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.29959 of 2011 against six respondents and the 6^th respondent is the sole respondent herein. The Writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the order dated 23.04.2011 issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the guidelines and provisions of the National Rural Development Guarantee Scheme Act 2005 and consequently set aside the same.

¶12

The case of the petitioner was that the National Rural Development Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is implemented in Srikakulam District as a policy of the Government. The scheme requires the services of Technical Assistants besides the services of Field Assistants etc. After undergoing standard selection process conducted by respondent No.4, the 4^th respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 01.04.2008 for a period of two years and according to which, the petitioner has to report to respondent No.5. In pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner reported to respondent No.5 and worked as Technical Assistant from 01.04.2008 onwards. While so, respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 25.10.2010, kept the petitioner out of contract employment and asked him to

¶13

submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.11.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued order dated 23.04.2011 terminating his services.

¶14

Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.6-the Chief Executive Officer (SRDS) on 03.06.2011 and the same is pending. During its pendency, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29959 of 2011 seeking to set aside the termination order, and this Court vide order dated 11.11.2011, disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case directing respondent No.6 to consider the appeal dated 03.06.2011, stated to have been filed before him by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence, this Contempt Case is filed complaining that respondent No.6 in the writ petition, who is the sole respondent in the Contempt Case, has not passed any order as directed by this Court, as such, the respondent is liable to be punished under provisions of Contempt of Court Act.

¶15

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, and in fact, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Member Secretary, Society for Rural Development Services, Office of the Commissioner of Rural Development long before he filed the appeal before respondent No.6-the Chief Executive Officer and the Member Secretary vide proceedings dated 15.02.2012 dismissed the appeal upholding the termination order. The sole respondent is not at all liable for any action in the contempt proceedings as no

¶16

such appeal is pending before him and the petitioner impleaded respondent No.6 in the writ petition by making false allegations against him and that the appeal is pending before him.

¶17

The perusal of proceedings of the Member Secretary dated 15.02.2012 reveals that the petitioner being aggrieved by the proceedings dated 23.04.2011 issued by respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Member Secretary, Society for Rural Development Services, Office of Commissioner of Rural Development on 03.06.2011 and in compliance of the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by this Court, the authority issued the proceedings No.318-A/SCRD/SPM (DM)/345/Appeal/2011 dated 15.02.2012 considering the case of the petitioner and dismissing the appeal with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order to the appellate authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the disciplinary policy for FTEs of SRDS within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶18

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner has not made out any case for initiation of the proceedings against the respondent herein under provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, in as much as the authority concerned before whom the petitioner preferred an appeal, has already disposed of. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Case deserves to be closed.

¶19

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall be closed. No order as to costs. The learned counsel for the respondent

¶20

is directed to see that a copy of the proceedings dated 15.02.2012 is served on the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the petitioner is also informed of the same.

¶21

________________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶22

DATE: 23.01.2013 sr/isl

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶24

CONTEMPT CASE NO. 2138 OF 2012

¶25

sr/isl January 23, 2013

Duba Venkata Ramana v. S.Murali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duba Venkata Ramana v. S.Murali

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

P.Bikshamalah Vs Mr.a.K. Khan

Vangala Manemma, Vs Mr. Niranjan,The Spl. Deputy Collector (La)

Bharaj Laxma Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Palla Jagannadha Rao Vs The Commissioner of Appeals

Modegunta Ramachandraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Dasarath Reddy Vs District Collector