APHC010620562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3584/2025 Between: 1. Y. MAHALAKSHMI, W/O IRUGATIA MOHAN KUMAR AGED 62 YEARS, OCC RETD MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NAGULUPPALAPADU, PRAKASHAM DISTRICTT., AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR IAS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMAVARATHI. (AP) 2. SRI V R KRISHNA TEJA MYLAVARAPU IAS, COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS EMPIRE, D. NO. 12-47, PATHURU ROAD, BESIDE RELIANCE DIGITALS, TADEPALLE VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE 522 501. 3. SRI SWAPNIL BINKAR PUNDKAR IAS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT SRI B. LAKSHMIPATHI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. SRI B LAKSHMIPATHI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): p. 2 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 may be pleased to summon the contemners and punish them suitably under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the final orders of this Honble Court dated 22.11.2024 in W.P.No. 27005/2024 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N B CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAJU 2. Y KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above contempt case was filed complaining of a violation of the order dated 22.11.2024, passed in W.P.No.27005 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri N.B. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Raju, learned counsel, appeared for the respondents. 3. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of on 22.11.2024. The operative portion of said order reads as follows: “Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the expressions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry in pursuance of charge memo vide No.14774/CPR-A3/2008, dated 01.11.2011 (Ex.P1) issued against the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within three (03) months. If the respondent authorities fail to conclude the inquiry, within the time stipulated, the charge memo p. 3 dated 01.11.2011 against the petitioner, shall stand quashed automatically, without reference to any further orders. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was pleaded that the inquiry officer, after completion of the inquiry, submitted a report dated 19.02.2025 to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, holding that out of 12 charges, seven charges were proved, one charge partially proved, and four charges were not proved. In turn, the respondent No.2, communicated the inquiry report to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.03.2025 and called for an explanation. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 17.06.2025 and 10.10.2025 and informed that the charged officer has submitted the evidence regarding charge Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 11 & 12 and hence, they are not proved and further informed that only two charges i.e. charge Nos.3 & 5, out of 12 charges are proved. Respondent No.2 also filed an interlocutory application seeking an extension of three months to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the inquiry was not completed within three months, as directed by this Court, the charge memo dated 01.11.2011 issued against the petitioner stands quashed. Learned counsel would also submit that subsequent communication referred to supra violates the order dated 22.11.2024, and the respondents have violated the order intentionally. 6. Separate counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. It was pleaded that the inquiry officer, after completion of the inquiry, submitted a report dated 19.02.2025, referred to supra and thereafter, the respondent No.2 communicated the report to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.03.2025 and called for explanation. After completion of disciplinary proceedings, the punishment was imposed vide G.O.Rt.No.932 PR & RD (Vig.III) Department, dated 27.11.2025. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.35503 of 2025, and the same is pending consideration. p. 4 7. The point for consideration is : “Whether the respondents have violated the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.27005 of 2024, deliberately and intentionally, needs to be considered.” 8. In the case at hand, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry pursuant to charge memo dated 01.11.2011 issued against the petitioner, within three months and if the authorities fail to conclude the inquiry within the time stipulated, the charge memo dated 01.11.2011 shall stands quashed automatically, without reference to any further orders. 9. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 19.02.2025 to the Commissioner of respondent No.2. In turn, the Commissioner communicated a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner vide memo dated 25.03.2025 and called for an explanation. In fact, the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 17.06.2025 & 10.10.2025, informed that the charged officer has submitted the evidence regarding the charge Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 11 & 12 and hence, they are not proved, and only charge Nos.3 & 5 are proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.932 PR & RD (Vig.III) Department, dated 27.11.2025. 10. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the inquiry was not concluded within three months, as directed by this Court, the charge memo stands quashed and further issuance of proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.932 PR & RD (Vig.III) Department, dated 27.11.2025, violates the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.27005 of 2024, in the considered opinion of this Court, is misconceived. The petitioner has already filed W.P.No.35503 of 2025 challenging the proceedings dated 27.112025. To punish a contemnor in a contempt case, the petitioner must establish that the contemnor violated the order deliberately and intentionally. However, in the p. 5 case at hand, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the same. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the contempt case, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 07.03.2026 TVN p. 6 179 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3584 of 2025 Date: 07.03.2026 TVN