Reserved on : 14-10-2025 Pronounced on : 20-11-2025 Uploaded on : 05-12-2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.6490 of 2023 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5549 of 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Teaching Faculty in the Department of Botany, AU College of Science and Technology, Visakhapatnam, by order dated 10.07.2006, on a consolidated remuneration for the year 2006–2007. Subsequently, he continued in service as Assistant Professor (Contract) with a monthly consolidated pay of Rs.21,600/- from 02.07.2013 onwards. The petitioner rendered 17 years of unblemished service to the satisfaction of the authorities. NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 2 However, the 2nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2022, discontinuing the petitioner‟s services as Assistant Professor in the Department of Botany, AU College of Science and Technology, Visakhapatnam, without issuing any notice. Consequently, regular class work was not allotted to him from 01.04.2022 and his salary was withheld from May 2022 onwards. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 25.11.2022 to the Registrar, Andhra University, seeking reinstatement, but no action was taken. Since, respondent authority did not consider the representation of the petitioner, he preferred Writ Petition No. 5549 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023 before this Court. 4. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court passed an interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.5549 of 2023 dated 07.03.2023 which reads as follows: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, by an order dated 29.07.2022 in W.P.No.23237 of 2022, this Court granted an interim order as follows: "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner has shown a prima facie case, NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 3 there shall be an interim order as prayed for till 15.09.2022. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the similar benefit to the petitioner herein also. Accordingly, as the petitioner has shown a prima facie case, there shall be interim order as prayed for till 28.03.2023. Post the matter on 28.03.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court, by interim order dated 07.03.2023 in W.P.No. 5549 of 2023, suspended the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 18.11.2022 and directed the matter to be posted on 28.03.2023. Despite communication of the interim order and representation dated 13.03.2023 made to the respondents, the petitioner was not reinstated in the service and the respondent did not comply with the interim order passed by this court dated 07.03.2023 in W.P. No. 5549 of 2023, which amounts to willful disobedience and constitutes Contempt of Court under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and hence, the petitioner prays that the respondents be punished in accordance with law. NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 4 6. Respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that, this Court has passed interim order for a limited period and unless that order is extended, it would not continue automatically. The Petitioner herein being an Assistant Professor on contractual basis was required to attend to teaching duties. The 2nd Semester of the academic year 2022-23, as per the University's academic calendar, commenced from February 2023 and concluded in the first week of May 2023. In view of the fact that the workload had already been duly adjusted at the commencement of the semester, and that the interim order dated 07.03.2023-granted for a limited duration of three weeks, i.e., until 28.03.2023 and the same was received by the then Vice- Chancellor's Office of the Respondent University on 25.03.2023, and further noting that the said interim order was not extended beyond the aforementioned period, the Respondent University was compelled to act in a manner that safeguarded the academic interests of the students. Accordingly as the interim order was operative only for the limited period falling mid- semester, the University did not assign teaching responsibilities to the Petitioner for the said three days, in the best interests of the students. The actions of the University were neither intentional nor wanton, and were not aimed at disobeying the orders of the Hon'ble Court. NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 5 7. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, notice was ordered on 11.12.2023 and the matter was posted to 23.01.2024. Despite service of notice, the respondent failed to appear either in person or through his counsel, leading to issuance of Form-1 Notice. On 20.02.2024, this Court took a lenient view and allowed the dispense petition filed by the respondent with certain observations. Thereafter, on 20.03.2024, a direction was issued to serve a copy of the counter affidavit on the petitioner, and on 25.06.2024, a further direction was given to get the counter numbered and served. Even after ample opportunities were granted, the respondent failed to file the counter, and on 12.11.2024, this Court ordered his personal appearance. On 02.12.2024, instead of the respondent appearing, a “returned” counter purportedly filed by a third party, namely the Registrar, was sought to be brought on record on behalf of the respondent/contemnor, amounting to willful disobedience of this Court‟s orders. It is further submitted that the respondent/contemnor falsely stated in his counter affidavit that he ceased to be Vice-Chancellor on 25.11.2023 and is now working as Senior Professor in the Department of Computer Science & Systems Engineering, Andhra University. As on the date of filing of the counter, NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 6 he was very much continuing as Vice-Chancellor. The averments in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the counter, alleging that the University filed a vacate stay petition in the main writ petition, are also false, as no such petition was ever filed. 8. During hearing, Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the admission made by Respondent in various paragraphs of the counter affidavit while pleading receipt of copy of the order while he was discharging his duties in the University as Vice Chancellor is sufficient to conclude that the respondent violated the order of this Court. On 12.11.2024, this Court specifically directed the respondent herein to file counter affidavit on or before 02.12.2024, failing which, he shall appear in person before the Court and explain the reasons as to why the counter affidavit is not filed. Having availed more than two times and not implemented the orders of this Court. But, the respondent herein neither filed any counter affidavit nor appeared in person, but got filed the counter through the third party to the contempt case i.e. Registar of the University, which itself is misleading the Court and to avoid personal appearance on that day. He further submits that, till demitting the office of Vice Chancellor, he did not take any steps to reinstate the petitioner into service for the NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 7 reasons best known to him. The respondent was aware about the interim direction issued by this Court, despite it, obviously for reasons best known to him, the respondent got formed a Departmental Committee to drag on the matter and conveniently dragged on the matter and caused substantial damage to the petitioner which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and that the respondent is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and requested to punish him in accordance with law. 9. Whereas, Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent denied intentional or deliberate violation of the interim direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.5549 of 2023 dated 07.03.2023 and that Respondent specifically contended that the petitioner made a deliberate attempt to give an impression of non-compliance of the order by submitting a representation to the Registrar of the University only on 30.11.2023 seeking implementation of the interim orders passed by this Court, on which, as on that date, the interim orders were no longer operative. He submits that, there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner between 28.03.2023 and 08.05.2024, as no extension was granted during this period and consequent to the NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 8 extension of the interim orders by the Hon‟ble Court on 09.05.2024 by that time the academic year 2023-2024 is coming to closure. After Summer Vacation, 2024 the petitioner was reinstated into service for the academic year 2024-25 vide proceedings No. SII(4)/TAC/Botany/2022 dated 23.07.2024, hence, violation of the orders passed by this Court does not arise and requested this Court to dismiss the contempt case. He also contended that, as per the Departmental Committee, which met for implementation of orders of this Court, resolved that there is no workload for re-instatement of the petitioner. He further asserts that, this respondent did not continue as Vice Chancellor for some period after receipt of the orders of this Court, after short break, he continued as Vice Chancellor till his completion of period i.e. upto 24.11.2023. He further submits that, University filed vacate petition in the main writ petition and the same is pending for adjudication before this Court. As such, this Court should proceed first with the vacate petition till disposal of same, this contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded. However, the orders of this Court are complied with, therefore, there is no willful violation or disobedience on the part of the respondent. Hence, the contempt is liable to be closed. NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 9 10. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the respondent violated the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.5549 of 2023 dated 07.03.2023 willfully and deliberately to constitute a civil contempt. If so, whether the respondent is liable for punishment under Section 12 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971” POINT 11. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I find it apposite to narrate the legal position for better appreciation of the case and application of law. 12. The Contempt of Court is defined under Section 2(a) as follows: "contempt of court means, civil contempt or criminal contempt", Whereas clause (b) of Section 2 defines Civil Contempt as “willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.” 13. The Contempt jurisdiction is not conferred on the Subordinate Courts and it is only conferred on the Court of record, in view of NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 10 Article 215 of the Constitution of India. According to it, the High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The jurisdiction of contempt is independent jurisdiction of its original nature. Therefore, this Court is competent to exercise such power to punish a person, who is guilty of contempt and this jurisdiction is enjoyed by Courts, is only for the purpose of upholding the jurisdiction of the judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Court must not react by the emotion, but must act judicially. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and strict adherence of rule of law. Once, the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court shall initiate action, uninfluenced by the nature of direction in a pending lis before the Court vide judgment in Priya Gupta and others vs. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others1). Contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for the purpose of upholding the majesty of judicial system that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be hyper sensitive or swang by emotions, but must 1 JT 2013 (1) SC 27, 2012 (12) SCALE 289 NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 11 act judicially (Vide: Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal vs. SK. Monobbor Hossain2). 14. “Contempt” is disorderly conduct of contemnor causing serious damage to the institution of justice administration. Such conduct, with reference to its adverse effects and consequences, can be discernibly classified into two categories one which has a transient effect on the system and/or the person concerned and is likely to wither by the passage of time while the other causes permanent damage to the institution and administration of Justice (Vide: Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India and others3). 15. Turning to the facts of the present case, this Court passed an interim order on 07.03.2023 in W.P.No.5549 of 2023 to the respondent to continue the services of the petitioner as assistant professor in botany department AU College of science and technology Visakhapatnam till 28.03.2023, since the petitioner has shown a prima facie case. Copy of the interim order was dispatched by this Court on 10.03.2023 and the same was received by the office of the second respondent on 25.03.2023. Receipt of the copy of the order is not in 2 (2012)3 SCALE 534 3 (2011) 6 SCALE 220 NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 12 dispute, when the respondent is discharging his duties as Vice Chancellor of the University, after receipt of copy of order, he ought to have implemented the order of this Court. Instead of implementing the order, he is stated in the counter affidavit that the university did not assign teaching responsibilities to the petitioner for the said three days in the best interest of the students. 16. In Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, the respondent narrated several facts, while admitting about receipt of copy of the interim order and it reads as follows: “ ……..In view of the fact that the work load had already been duly adjusted at the commencement of the semester and that the interim order dated 07.03.2023 granted for a limited duration of three weeks i.e. until 28.03.2023 was received by the then Vice Chancellor’s Office of the Respondent University on 25.03.2023 …….” 17. Thus, the respondent admitted that he received copy of the order on 25.03.2023. When once the respondent has received the order, he should have implemented the order of this Court. He conveniently delayed implementing the order of this court for 3 days. i.e upto 28.03.2023. In fact, the interim order was not extended thereafter for the reason that even though the matter was directed to NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 13 be listed on 28.3.2023 it has not seen the light of the day till I.A No.2 of 2024 for extending the interim order was listed. In the meanwhile, the interim order was lapsed during the interregnum period. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the orders were not implemented on the ground that there is no interim order is in subsistence. The fact remains that the respondent neither filed any vacate petition nor filed any appeal, without doing so, he sat over the order of this Court. Such an act would clearly fall within Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 i.e. „Civil Contempt‟, which means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. 18. In the counter affidavit of the respondent, at Paragraph No.6 it is time and again stated that the Departmental Committee of the University met to implement the orders of this Court. The departmental committee noted that there are five regular faculty members and one deputed faculty totalling 6 members. As per UGC norms the six regular faculty members have sufficient workload and there is no left over workload for petitioner, as such it is difficult to accommodate the existing assistant professor on contract basis without teaching work. NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 14 19. This Court is unable to understand that when the Court ordered to continue the services of the petitioner in the University, what provoked the second respondent and Departmental Committee and take a decision stating that it is difficult to accommodate the existing professor without teaching work. This clearly amounts to sitting over the order passed by this Court. Instead of implementing the orders of the Court the respondent cited excuses for not implementing the orders of the Court. Moreover, the respondent has not filed any vacate petition in the writ petition, as contented by the respondent. It is settled law that, in the absence of any vacate petition or without challenging the interim order by way of appeal, the respondent cannot be permitted to contend that there is no workload for reinstatement of the petitioner. 20. It is not out of place to observe the due respect or responsibility as shown by the respondent can be drawn from the docket proceedings of the Court, which itself indicates the adamant behavior and indigenous intelligence of the respondent. First otice was issued on 11.12.2023 the same was received. Even after receipt of the same, he neither appeared n person or through counsel. Having no other option, this Court issued Form-I notice on 23.01.2024. After receipt of NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 15 Form-I Notice, he did not chose to appear, but preferred a dispense with petition, the same was ordered. Later, for non-representation on behalf of the respondent on several occasions, this Court issued Form- I Notice on 09.07.2025. Even after receipt of the same, he did not appear on 18.08.2025, then Bailable Warrants were issued. On 02.09.2025, recall petition was filed stating that the Form-I notice received by the office was not informed by the Registrar, since he demitted the office of Vice Chancellor, but continuing as Professor, finally warrants were recalled on 02.09.2025. whereas, on 20.02.2024, he preferred dispense with petition from appearance, and the same was allowed with an condition to appear on the next date of hearing, as stated in his affidavit. It is further observed that, even though counter affidavit said to have been filed on 23.01.2024, as reported by the counsel on 25.06.2024, but the same was not brought on record, till conditional order was passed by this Court on 12.11.2024. Only for the appearance of the respondent, Form-I notices were issued twice and matter underwent number of adjournments. Therefore, on perusal of docket proceedings, it indicates the scant respect towards orders of this Court by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that till demitting his office as Vice Chancellor, he did not choose to comply NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 16 with the order of this Court without there being any valid ground or reasons. The order of this Court was complied after new incumbent took charge as Vice Chancellor. 21. On perusal of docket proceedings and counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it clearly demonstrates that the respondent herein intentionally and deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. This respondent has shown scant respect towards the orders of this court at every stage, from the stage of receipt of notice at first instance. 22. When once an order is passed, it is the duty of the authorities to implement the same without giving any interpretation and if the order is contrary to law, they are at liberty to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. But, without preferring an appeal, the respondent/contemnor cannot interpret the order and give different meaning to the order passed by this Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by this Court. Such an act of the respondent/contemnor is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah4, wherein, it is held as follows: 4 (2007) 7 SCC 689 NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 17 31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. 32. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the Court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the Court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 18 directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering 'as if he had worked'. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a Court of Law and if such directions are issued by a Court, the Authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant- Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected. 23. The same view is expressed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others5, where the Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the 5 (2004) 7 SCC 261 NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 19 Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take the view different than what was taken in the earlier decision If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, it cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 24. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 20 has received its finality had been complied with or not. This Court is primarily concerned with the question of conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there is any ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the concerned party to approach the Higher Court, if according to him/her the same is not legally tenable and such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the Higher Court. Assuming that a question arose about impossibility of complying with the order, if that was the case, atleast the respondent could have done was to assail the correctness of the order/judgment before the Higher Court. But, the respondent failed to comply with the order of this Court. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. As such, Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Therefore, flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. 25. Therefore, Applying the principle laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to the present facts of the case, this Court can safely NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 21 conclude that respondent, in utter disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 07.03.2023 in W.P.No.5549 of 2023 consciously violated the order passed by this Court. Such conduct would not only impede the rule of law, but also cause serious damage to the judicial institution and judicial administration. Therefore, such conduct of Respondent cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking lenient view against such person who caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself. 26. In view of the findings recorded by this Court in the above paragraphs, respondent/contemnor is liable for punishment as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and thereby he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one (01) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), each. 27. In the result, contempt case is allowed, directing Respondent/P.V.G.D. Prasada Reddy to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 22 28. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 29. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent Contemnor requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable them to prefer an appeal. 30. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent/Contemnor, the above order is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks to prefer an appeal. In case no appeal is preferred or no stay is granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal if any preferred, Respondent /Contemnor shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 22.12.2025 before 05.00 p.m to undergo sentence. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA SP Date: 20.11.2025 NV,J CC No.6490 of 2023 23 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.6490 of 2023 Date: 20.11.2025 W SP