APHC010127822022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 868/2022 Between: 1. THOTA SUDHAKAR RAO, S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC WORKED AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT (R ANDB) SUB DIVISION, UDAYAGIRI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT RIO MAHIMALURU VILLAGE AND POST, ATMAKURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K V N CHAKRADHAR I A S, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. E VIVEKANANDA, SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER (R AND B) NELLORE CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. O ANAND IAS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR,NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4. M GANGADHAR, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER R AND B NELLORE CIRCLE,NELLORE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. RR 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28/10/2025, VIDE IA NO-1/2025 IN CC NO-868 OF 2022 ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 2 be pleased to pleased to issue summons to the Respondents upon due enquiry may be pleased to punish the Respondents for contempt of court under section 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for their willful disobedience of order dated 05.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No 2569 of 2020 on the file of this Hon'ble court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed respondents No. 3 & 4 as the Respondents No. 3 & 4 in C.C.No. 868 of 2022 for proper adjudication of the said Contempt Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA 2. 3 The Court made the following order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had initially been appointed as a Junior Accountant in the Treasury Department under the PHC category. A complaint was received against the petitioner stating that he had produced a false disability certificate, showing that he had a disability when, he had no such disability. An inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was referred to Government ENT hospital, Koti, Hyderabad for medical examination. The Superintendent, Government ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad after examining the petitioner issued a certificate showing the disability at 11 %. As a person having 40% or more disability only would be entitled to be appointed under the PHC category, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner has approached the AP Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.4150 of 2014. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 17.01.2018, allowed the application by setting aside the order of termination and leaving it open to the respondents therein, to conduct a fresh inquiry and take necessary decision after such inquiry. 2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit and attached certain proceedings to the said counter-affidavit. It is the case of the respondents that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a notice, dated 04.07.2020. However, the petitioner had submitted his representation, dated 02.07.2020, even before the inquiry had been initiated. Since the said representation set out all the facts relating to the petitioner’s case, the 4 respondent treated the representation, dated 02.07.2020 as a reply to the notice issued on 04.07.2020 and passed an order on 27.07.2020. In this order, the respondent had confirmed the earlier decision of termination on the ground that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner from the Regional Medical Board, SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupathi is a false certificate, and consequently held that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as a Junior Assistant, under the PHC category. 3. Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the direction of this Court was for an inquiry to be conducted after an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent could not have treated a representation given by the petitioner as the explanation to the notice issued later. Learned counsel would also contend that the proceedings, dated 27.07.2020, had not been served on the petitioner till they were produced in this Court along with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. 4. The learned counsel would contend that this has caused immense hardship to the rights of the petitioner and, in any event, amounts to violation of directions issued by this Court. 5. This Court has gone through the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.07.2020, show-cause notice, dated 04.07.2020 and the orders of the respondent, dated 27.07.2020. A perusal of these documents would show that the issues raised by the respondent in the show-cause notice, dated 5 04.07.2020 are covered in the representation, dated 02.07.2020. It is true that the respondent had not allowed the petitioner to submit further response to the show-cause notice, dated 04.07.2020. However, the fact remains that the petitioner could not have raised any grounds over and above the grounds raised in the representation, dated 02.07.2020. Though there has been a technical non-compliance with the directions of this Court, it cannot be said that the respondent passed the order without considering the issues raised by the petitioner. In any event, it was open to the petitioner to have challenged the order of the respondent, dated 27.07.2020. 6. This Court is of the view that the technical infraction of order of this Court cannot be construed as a deliberate defiance or willful violation of orders of this Court. 7. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 02.02.2026 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 868/2022 Date: 02.02.2026 KA