THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.1919 of 2024 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order dated 11.03.2024 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024. 2. Heard Dr. P. Surya Rao, Party-in-Person and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.6189 of 2024 to declare the action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner from service vide Proceedings Rc.No.214801/VC/G1/2023 dated 08.11.2023 and consequential rejection order passed in Appeal vide Memo No.2266478/D&VIG/2023 dated 22.12.2023 and consequently to set- aside the suspension order dated 08.11.2023 and rejection order passed in Appeal order dated 22.12.2023. 4. . During pendency of W.P.No.6189 of 2024, this Court passed an interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2024 on 11.03.2024, which reads as follows: “Therefore, this Court deems that the impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2023 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law and liable to be suspended. Accordingly, there shall be an interim suspension of proceedings and further, Respondent No.1 is directed to take necessary 2 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 action in view of the suspension of the impugned proceedings.” 5. The Party-in-person submits that, without implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024 in true spirit, the respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court and did not reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Director at Integrated Sheep Development Project, Srikakulam. This inaction itself on the part of the respondents amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024. He further contends that, failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit contending that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024, the petitioner filed representation on 13.03.2024 and requested the Government to comply with the orders and continue him as Assistant Director, ISDP, Srikakulam. Thereupon, the Government requested the Director of Animal Husbandry/appointing & Disciplinary Authority to take 3 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 immediate necessary action regarding the interim orders of this Court and requested for filing counter affidavit in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 on behalf of the Government through Memo No.2266478/Dy.Vig/2023 dated 20.03.2024. Thereafter, proceedings vide Roc.No.AHF02-OPES/1348/ 2024-ESTT-B1 dated 08.11.2024 were issued posting the petitioner to Area Veterinary Hospital, Terlam, Vizianagaram District in the existing vacancy on reinstatement into Government Service, subject to outcome of the final result in W.P.No.6189 of 2024, as such, the directions of this Hon’ble Court has been complied with and requested to close the contempt case against the respondent. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, in compliance of the order of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 dated 11.03.2024, Respondent has issued proceedings vide Roc.No.AHF02-OPES/1348/ 2024-ESTT-B1 dated 08.11.2024 posting the petitioner as Assistant Director to Area Veterinary Hospital, Terlam, Vizianagaram District in the existing vacancy on reinstatement into Government Service. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated into Government Service subject to pendency of the outcome of the result in W.P.No.6189 of 2024 and also pending detailed enquiry report from the Departmental Enquiry 4 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 Officer. After interim orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court on 11.03.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6189 of 2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government on 13.03.2024 along with the interim orders of this Court requesting to continue him as Assistant Director, ISDP, Srikakulam. It appears that correspondence has taken place between the authorities and finally, the Director issued proceedings dated 08.11.2024, posting the petitioner to Area Veterinary Hospital, Terlam, Vizianagaram District. 9. On overall consideration of this factual position, it appears that, though the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent to continue him as Assistant Director, ISDP, Srikakulam, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondent reinstated the petitioner into service and posted at Area Veterinary Hospital, Terlam, Vizianagaram District only in view of the existing vacancy was arisen there and due to administrative reason. Such administrative exigencies cannot be faulted. 10. Further, the claim of the delay in compliance of the order when the interim orders were passed by this Court on 11.03.2024, but the respondent issued reinstatement proceedings on 08.11.2024, i.e. after more than eight months. This Court is expressing its displeasure and anguish towards the attitude of the respondent in causing much delay in 5 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 implementing the orders of this Court. However, since the respondent tendered his unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court for the lapse on his part in implementing the orders of this Court and due to the administrative reasons as explained in reply as well as by his counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent should be considered. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent filed additional reply affidavit on 19.07.2024 on behalf of the respondent submitting that Director of Animal Husbandry is the competent and also Disciplinary Authority for the post of Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry in the Class-A of Category (5), Class (B) of Category (3), Class-C of Category (3) and Class-D of Category (3) of A.P. Animal Husbandry State Service Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed reply affidavit dated 22.07.2024 refuting the said contention contending that the Director, AH, DD & Fisheries are harassing the petitioner by abusing and misusing the statutory powers vested with them is not substantiated and cogent evidence, except by way of his assumptions or presumptions. 12. It is a settled principle of law that this Court while adjudicating upon a contempt petition shall not delve into adjudication upon the disputed facts since the same would lead to the Court transgressing its boundaries as enshrined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, thereby, going 6 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 beyond the judgment which has been alleged to be violated. The Court, while deciding upon the contempt petition, shall restrict itself to adjudicating upon the limited aspect which is whether there is a "wilful disobedience" by the party against whom contempt proceeding is being sought to be initiated. This Court while adjudicating upon a contempt petition shall not decide upon the disputed question of facts. The Court under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall only adjudicate upon the fact whether there is a wilful disobedience of any judgment/order passed by the Court. 13. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed, with a warning to the Respondent/Contemnor to be more careful in future in implementing the orders of the Court. 13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 05.03.2025 SP 7 NV,J C.C.No.1919 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.1919 of 2024 Date: 05.03.2025 W SP