APHC010087192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT CASE NO: Between: P. Chandra Mohana Rao Budithi Rajsekhar Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not comply the orders passed by this Court dated 09.05.2024 in W.P.No.13753 of 2019 2. This court passe “23. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings passed by the appellate authority as well as disciplinary IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 572 OF 2025 P. Chandra Mohana Rao AND ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor: The Court made the following: This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not comply the orders passed 09.05.2024 in W.P.No.13753 of 2019. 2. This court passed the following order, which reproduced hereunder: 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings passed by the appellate authority as well as disciplinary IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNOR Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/ contemnors for Contempt of Court for willful and deliberate disobedience in not comply the orders passed d the following order, which reproduced hereunder: 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings passed by the appellate authority as well as disciplinary authority are set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, they are at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry against the petitioner as per the governing rules and law, if so required. The Petitioner can make a fresh representation for his service benefits as claimed in the Writ Petition to the respondent authorities. On such representation, the respondent authorities shall consider and pass appropriate orders according to the governing rules and law.No order as to costs”. 2. Heard Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel, representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after filing the Contempt Case, the respondent authorities have issued a Memo in response to their representation. Learned counsel would further submit that they may be permitted to withdraw the Contempt Case, with a liberty to file fresh petition in case of the necessity. 4. Considering the submissions made, since it is a Contempt Case, on perusal of the material on record and in the light of representation made by the petitioner, as the authorities came forwarded to comply with the order of this Court, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, in case of non compliance of the order in future. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.03.2025 KK