IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2771 OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to summon and punish the respondents for their willful and deliberate disobedience of orders passed by this Honourable Court in WP.No.26566 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022 Between: P Sankar, S/o Late Panthula Nagaraja, Aged about 61 years, Deputy Superintendent of Police, R/o. D.No. 19-14-54, Road No.4, Raghavendra Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District, A.P. ...Petitioner/Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.28300 of 2021 AND 1. Shri G Vijay Kumar IPS, Present working as Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of AP, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. Sri. Harish Kumar Gupta, IPS, Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, AP DGP Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P., Pin code 522503. ...Contemnors/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P.No.26566 of 2022 1^ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. BHARAT BABU w> " Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. RAJU The Court made the following Order: 1 APHC010253872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / [3310] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2771/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER P Sankar AND ...CONTEMNOR(S) Shri G Vijay Kumar Ips and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.N BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Contemnor{S): 1.G RAJU The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnors/respo ndents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26566 of 2020 dated 24.08.2022. 2. Heard Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G.Raju, learned counselappearing for the respondents. 2 3. This Court, vide order, has disposed of the writ petition dated 24.08.2022, i The operative portion of the in W.P.No.26566 of 2020, same, as under; “■■•Having regard to the facts case, the respondents and circumstances and without touching the merits of the to the post of promotions are effected, In ,em,s of -o; Department, dated 30.01. are directed to consider the Ihe petitioner promotion Police (Civil), as and when General Administration (Services Additional Superintendent of G.OMs.No.66. 1991. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition iis disposed of at the admission stage. No costs” 4^ Learned above orders of this Court, 9.5.2023 and 3.6.2023 to the counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner herein that, in pursuance of the made representations dated requesting to promote thee of Police. But the judgment of 14.7,2023. he submits that respondents No.1 and 2 petitioner as Additional Superintendent has not been implemented till this Court the 1 respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 31. DSOs fit for promotion to the (Civil) for the panel was shown atSI.No.4 and it be deferred until termination against him. Likewise, Sri P. Mohan Rao who remarks. He submits that 8.2023 publishing the supplementary panel of category of Additional Superintendents of Police year 2022-2023. And iin the said list, the petitioner was shown in the remarks column that s name his promotion proceedings pending Murthy and Sri T. respectively carried the of the disciplinary/criminal Umapathi Varma, Sri RVSN are shown at SI.No.1 to 3 same Sri RVSN Murthy who was shown at Si.No.2 promotion orders were also issued and posted was considered for promotion and ASP (Intelligence) along with also got promoted. But the respondents till as others and that other juniors to the petitioner were considered by the and intentionally ignored his case of the petitioner has not been now and they are deliberately 3 candidature for promotion and hence filed the present contempt case. Therefore learned counsel requests to pass appropriate orders. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services on instructions vide Memo No1931779/Ser.l/A1/2022, dated 25.7.2024, would submit of the orders of this Court, the matter has been placed before DPC has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion. G.O. Ms No 151 Home (Ser.l) dept, dated 31/8/2023 received that, in pursuance DPC and Accordingly, Government in have issued orders that Sri P. Shankar DSP, is included and promotion be termination of the disciplinary/ Criminal proceedings pending terms of orders issued in the G.O.Ms. No.424, GAD, deferred until against him in Dt.26.05,1976 read with G.O.Ms, No.257, GAD, Dt.10.06,1999. He submits that, has informed that vide GO Ms No 424 General Administration the petitioner (Ser.C) Dept., dated 25.05.1976 has given the following orders: "In case of officers coming under category (iii) the DPC or their authority should consider whether such an officer would have been recommended for promotion, if the officer had his conduct not been under enquiry trial or investigation, and make its recommendations and the rank to be in the promotion list, in such cases the Departmental Pro^°t‘on Committee may make a specific recommendation that their promotion should be deferred until after the termination of the disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution. 6. In the event of there being an officer whose promotion has been recommended to be deferred, the vacancy that could have gone to the officer should be filled only on a purely temporary basis by the next person in the approved list of candidates for promotion. If the officer concerned is completely exonerated he should be promoted to the post filled on a temporary basis, restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with retrospective effect". 4 7. Further, Government have also issued guidelines regarding appointment by promotion/transfer to higher categories of employees who facing disciplinary case in GO Ms No 66 GA(Ser.C) Dept., dated 30,01.1991 and are further instructions in GO Ms No 257 GA(Ser.C) Dept., dated 30.01.1999. In this connection, it is informed that keeping in view of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee per the orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 24.08.2022 in WP No 26566/2022 filed by the petitioner herein. Government have issued orders Including the name of Sri P.Shankar DSP (Civil) in the panel year 2022-2023 at Roster point No 15 and promotion be deferred as until termination of the disciplinary/Criminal proceedings pending against him i terms of orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.424, GAD, Dt.25.05.1976 G.O.Ms. No.257, GAD, Dt.10.06.1999 vide G.O Ms No 151 in read with Home (Ser.l) Department dated 31.08.2023.ln view of the above, learned Government Pleader for Services, requested to apprise the above factual position and the contempt case may be closed present 8. Learned Government Pleader further has furnished a latest copy of proceedings vide Memo No.1931779/Ser.l/A1/2022 dated 13.02.2023 stating that, as stated by the petitioner that RVSN Murthy who is similarly situated person has got promotion, but in this regard, it is to inform that Sri RVSN Murthy, DSP ACB Was facing disciplinary case on the delinquency of certain irregularities and the Screening committee met on 28.08.2023 for preparation of panel of DSP (Civil) fit for promotion to the category of Addl.SP(Civil) for the panel year 2022- 23 have included and promotion is deferred until termination of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings pending against him in terms of orders issued In 5 the G.O.Ms. No.424, GAD, Dt.25.05.1976 read with G.O.Ms. No.257, GAD, Dt.10.06.1999. Accordingly, Government have G.O.Ms. No. 151, Home(Ser.l) Dept., dtd: 31.08.2023. Issued orders vide G.O.Rt.no.1590 Home (Ser.l) Department, dated 29.12.2023. Later, Government vide G.O.Ms. No.927, Home (SC.A) Dept., dtd; 28.08.2023 have dropped further action against Sri RVSN Murthy, (1) DSP ACB. Government have issued orders promoting Sri RVSN Murthy, (f) DSP ACB as AddI SP (Civil) in the panel year 2022-23 on par with his juniors vide G.O.Rt. No.986, Home(Ser.l) Dept., dtd: 07.09.2023 only after dropping departmental action. Further, Government have issued promotion and posting orders to Sri RVSN Murthy, AddI SP as Addi. SP, Intelligence among others vide G.O.Rt. No. 1590, Home(Ser.l) Dept., dtd; 29.12.2023. 9. In this connection, it is submitted that Government have given promotion and posting to Sir RVSN Murthy as Addi SP in the panel year 2022- 2023 after dropping of departmental action against him. Whereas in respect of Sri P.Sankar, DSP (retd) the Government have included him in the panel year 2022- 2023 and promotion be deferred until termination of the disciplinary/Criminal proceedings pending against him, but the Criminal proceedings are not yet concluded against Sri P.Sankar, DSP (retd). In view of the above, the Government Pleader for Services is requested to appraise the above factual position to this Hon'ble High Court and see that the CC No 2771/2024 in WP No 26566/2022 filed by Sri P. Shankar DSP (Civil) may be closed. 6 10. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India', the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder: Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the dignity for the institution. The Government departments court with due are no exception to it. ” In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot^ the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder: 11. ‘It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court sthkes at the on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected costs. ” very root of the rule of law are sacredly at all 12. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao^ Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder; the Hon’ble High 9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court. 10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the shakes the foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to not in the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of those have succeeded in the Courts. 23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be Implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court. ’’ very roots of rule of law and disobedience is who (2012) 1 see 273 ' (2006) 5 see 1 ’air 2008 Se3016 7 a 13. In the case of M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav and Another^ wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows: “20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests, unwarranted interference with administration ofjustice must be prevented. The power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders. Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration of justice. To ensure these objective, there are also constitutional provisions dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt powers of Courts of record would have been preserved. However the High Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act’’. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the purpose and object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra. I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent upon the respondents, more particularly, those who are holding senior position in that the Orders of this Court are complied with 14. Government, to ensure promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance. Any difficulty which they may have in complying with the order of this Court would require them to invoke this Court jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply with the orders Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court observed that, as stated by the respondents, they have complied with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit manner, but it is observed that the respondents have not 15. " Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court 8 complied with the orders of this Court in a letter and spirit manner, which amounts to contempt of Courts Act. 16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view to grant four (04) weeks time to the respondents to implement the directions 24.08.2022 passed in WP No.26566 of 2022, from the date of this order. of this Court dated receipt of a copy of 17. With the above observation, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. Shri G Vijay Kumar IPS, Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. Sri. Harish Kumar Gupta, IPS, Director Pradesh, AP DGP Head Quarters Pin code 522503. 3. One CC to Sri. N Bharat Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. G Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies To, General of Police, Andhra Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P., MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER CC.No.2771 of 2024 g> g 17 MAR 2025 .n„ S- -ftJy ^ . Current Section . CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS