Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
6 vs Hirak Ghosh on 20 November, 2025
Reserved on : 11-11-2025
Pronounced on : 20-11-2025
Uploaded on : 01-12-2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.6148 of 2023
ORDER:-
1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.39291 of 2022.
2. Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. W.P.No.39291 of 2022 is filed writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) on the ground of pendency of disciplinary/ACB case and inordinate delay in initiating and concluding the disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Motor Vehicle NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 2 Inspector (MVI) as per his seniority without reference to the disciplinary/ACB proceedings pending against him.
4. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 as per seniority as and when DPC conducted, without reference to the disciplinary/ ACB case against the petitioner and needless to say, consideration should be on merits and as per law.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the clear directions of this Court, the respondents did not consider his case for promotion and that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) merely deferred his candidature without assigning any reasons, which according to the petitioner amounts to willful disobedience and contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
6. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed separate counter affidavits. It is stated that this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 as per seniority as and NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 3 when DPC is conducted, without reference to the disciplinary/ACB case against the petitioner and consideration should be on merits and as per law. It is submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee took a collective decision in consideration of the claim of the petitioner for promotion in the context of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 which is tuned with certain conditions for consideration of the claims of the employees who are facing departmental/criminal proceedings for promotion to the next higher category. The petitioner was reported to be facing charges regarding two ACB cases, one is pertaining to disproportionate asset case and another ACB case is for corruption activities. Charges were framed against the petitioner in ACB case and served on 22.01.2021 and it is pending for trial before the Special Court for ACB Cases. In view of pendency of ACB cases, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was deferred. It is submitted that, in terms of the Government G.Os, the claims of the eligible candidates against whom no charges were framed are considered and their names were also approved by the Committee, and against whom charges were framed and pending trial, their cases were deferred, including the petitioner herein, as such, no discrimination was observed, as alleged by the petitioner while approving the names of the candidates and whose names were NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 4 placed before the DPC. It is further prayed that, since there is no deliberate or intentional disobedience in deferring the promotion on the part of the Respondents, they requested this Court to close the contempt proceedings initiated against them.
7. During hearing, Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 as per seniority, without reference to the disciplinary/ACB case against the petitioner, but the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner as directed. He also submits that, the appointing authority ought to have considered and allowed the petitioner for adhoc promotion, since the allegations leveled against the petitioner are not serious in nature. As per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, an officer is facing charges involving moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement of funds and grave dereliction of duty, then the appointing authority ought not to have considered in the public interest for adhoc promotion to the petitioner. But, however, since the charges leveled against the petitioner are not grave in nature, but minor, not involving moral turpitude, misappropriation, NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 5 embezzlement of funds and grave dereliction of duty, the appointing authority ought to have considered that it would not be against public interest to allow adhoc promotion. He further submits that, in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 29.12.2022, for appointment on promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors of Zone-I to Zone-IV, the name of the petitioner, Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector was recommended for inclusion in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector for the panel year 2022-2023, duly observing the disciplinary cases and orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court, wherein, the recommendations of the Committee were as follows:
"Hence, examined the orders of the Hon'ble H.C dt.05-12-2022 in W.P.No.39291/2022, considered and deferred."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Departmental Committee has not provided any reasons for deferring the case of the petitioner, nor has it clarified whether the case was treated as a serious or a petty one. Even assuming that the Committee did consider the petitioner's candidature, there is no explanation offered as to whether such consideration was made in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.257, thereby, the NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 6 respondents did not comply with the orders of this Court and deviated from the orders, obviously for reasons best known to them, which amounts to contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh1, E.T. Sunup vs. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association2; Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India3, judgments of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Padmavathi Bai vs. C. Hari Kiran, District Collector, Kadapa4 and Dr. C. Sunitha vs. M. Raghavendra Rao5. On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are liable for punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and requested to punish them in accordance with law.
9. Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, no discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioner while approving the names of the candidates whose names were placed before the DPC. Due consideration was given 1 (2002) 4 SCC 21 2 (2004) 8 SCC 683 3 (2012) 1 SCC 273 4 2023 (6) ALT 343 5 (2022) 04 AP CK 0061 NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 7 while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion and deferring the promotion as Motor Vehcile Inspector by examining the claim in the context of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and basing on the merits of the case and law, as directed by this Court. Since this Court passed an order with an observation that the respondents shall consider the claim of the promotion on merits and as per law, as per G.O.Ms.No.257, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered and deferred by the Committee, since the petitioner was facing trial in two ACB cases which were considered are grave in nature being relating to corruption allegations under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Committee opined that, since the charges leveled against the petitioner wee in nature of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for adhoc promotion in the public interest, since the petitioner is being the charged officer and facing trial. He further submits that, deferment of promotion of the petitioner is also in the context of consideration in terms of the parameters as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and on the merits and if the petitioner is aggrieved with the same, the petitioner is available with NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 8 fresh cause of action to seek for redressal of the same by way of judicial review.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalith Mathur vs. L. Maheswara Rao6, J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others7 and judgments of Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh and High Court of telangana in A.B. Venkateswara Rao, IPS vs. Mr. Shameer Sharma, IAS8, G. Naga Rani vs. Sri Anudeep Durishetty9 and judgment of High Court of Chattisgarh in A.K. Chhibber vs. Chairman, Coal India Limited10. On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the directions of this Hon'ble Court has been complied with and requested to close the contempt case against the respondents.
11. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.39291 of 2022, directed the 6 (2000) 10 SCC 285 7 (1996) 6 SCC 291 8 C.C.No.2052 of 2022 dated 29.11.2022 9 C.C.No.2741 of 2023 dated 21.02.2025 10 CC No.30 of 2011 dated 09.12.2014 NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 9 respondents only to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, as per seniority, and on merits. The said order did not the direct respondents for routine or mechanical promotion of the petitioner, but left the matter to the discretion of the competent authority to assess the eligibility of the petitioner in accordance with the parameters laid down under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. The DPC indeed considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 29.12.2022, and after examining the matter in the context of G.O.Ms.No.257, decided to defer the same in view of the pendency of trial in two ACB cases involving allegations of disproportionate assets and corruption. The deferment decision cannot be equated to non-consideration or willful disobedience of the Court's order, as the very direction was to consider "on merits and as per law," which has been duly complied with.
12. It is well-settled that for an act to constitute civil contempt, there must be a willful, deliberate, and intentional disobedience of a Court's order. A decision taken bona fide in compliance with the Court's direction does not amount to contempt.
NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 10
13. In the present case, this Court is satisfied to hold that the respondents have complied with the directions issued in W.P.No.39291 of 2022 by duly placing the case of the petitioner before the DPC, considering the same in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, and taking a reasoned decision thereon. If the petitioner is aggrieved by merits of such decision, the remedy available to him is to challenge such decision in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but not under contempt jurisdiction.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 05.12.2022 by the respondents. The respondents have acted in compliance with the directions of this Court, and therefore, the Contempt Case is devoid of merits.
15. In the result, contempt case is closed. No costs.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:20-11-2025 SP NV,J CC No.6148 of 2023 11 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.6148 of 2023 Date: 20-11-2025 SP