Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Maruthisree vs J.Syamala Rao on 28 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CONTEMPT CASE No.5846 OF 2022
ORDER:-
1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the interim order dated 01.11.2022 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed W.P.No.35261 of 2022 to declare the orders vide Rc.No.120/Admn.II/2022, dated 04.10.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
3. During pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 01.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022 and it reads as follows:
"Post the matter on 28.11.2022. There shall be interim direction as prayed for, for a period of six (6) weeks."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after obtaining interim orders from this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.11.2022 along with copy of the order to the Respondents through registered post. The same was received by the Respondents on 07.11.2022. In spite of receiving the representation NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 2 submitted by the petitioner, the Respondents have not allowed the petitioner to discharge her duties, contrary to the directions of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court dated 01.11.2022in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022, as such, it would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble Court and therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Complaining the same, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case.
6. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed common counter affidavit stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.28, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 10.08.2022, the existing unaided staff of the institution shall be continued on outsourcing basis subject to submission of legally binding undertaken by them declaring that they are fully aware of the prohibitory clauses of Act No.2 of 1994 (A.P. Regulation of Appointments to Public Services & Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure Act, 1994). It is also stated that the Respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated Rc.No.120/Admn.II/2022, dated 04.10.2022 informed the petitioner that her request to discharge duties in the College is not feasible, as she has not submitted NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 3 undertaking in terms of clause 4(A)(v) of the taken policy issued videG.O.Ms.No.42, Higher Education (C.E.) Department, dated 10.08.2021.
7. It is further stated that the petitioner has never challenged the conditions of giving an undertaking on the policy decision in G.O. Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021, as alleged by the petitioner that such execution would affect her pending the case of regularization of her services. The petitioner could be continued as outsourcing Employees in Respondent No.7 College only, if her name has been included in G.O. Ms.No.28, dated 10.08.2022, taking over the College was delayed only for the reasons that the petitioner did not give her undertaking to continue her services as outsourcing employee as per Caluse 4(A)(v) of policy of G.O.Ms.No.42. Now the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of the Hon'ble Court to grant an order of continuing her services as out sourcing employee when the condition of giving under taking in terms of G.O. Ms.No.42, dated10.08.2021 subsists. Several Un-aided Lecturers have submitted their undertaking as per clauses in G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 in spite of writ petitions are pending for regularization /absorption before this Hon'ble Court.
8. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 is the competent to issue necessary orders to continue the petitioner's services as Out NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 4 Sourcing Employee in Respondent No.7 College as per Para (A)(v) of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated10.08.2021. The petitioner shall be continued on outsourcing basis subject to the submission of legally binding undertaking by her declaring that she is fully aware of the prohibitory clause of Act No.2 of 1994 and she should never seek recourse of the regularization now or later whatsoever grounds. Finally, it is submitted that if the petitioner services are considered as outsourcing employee, the same would amount to decision against the policy envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021, as such, the services of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration or continued.
9. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 filed separate counter affidavits, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner was working as un-aided lecturer on contract basis with consolidated pay and Respondent No.4 was added as a proforma Respondent in the writ petition. The Commissioner of Endowments has nothing to do either for initial appointment of the petitioner as un-aided lecturer with consolidated pay or in handing over the said Degree College to the Government.
10. It is submitted that Respondent No.4 has no manner of right of authority even to implement the interim orders of this court, since the said Government Degree College is not under the administrative NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 5 control of the commissioner of Endowments. On the other hand, it is under the administrative control of officials of Higher Education Department and in view of the above, Respondent No.4 has not violated the interim orders of this Court and requested to dismiss the case against him. As such, willful, wanton or disobedience on the part of Respondent No.4 to comply with the interim orders passed by this Court dated 01.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022 does not arise and requested to close the contempt case against him.
11. Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 reiterated their contentions urged in their respective counter affidavits.
12. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
13. It appears that the entire case in the writ petition is around the clause (4)(A)(v) of the G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.08.2021, for better understanding it is extracted hereunder:
"Further, such managements and their unaided/part-time staff (both teaching and non-teaching) will be mandated for giving a legally binding undertaking declaring that they are fully aware of the prohibitory clauses of Act 2 of 1994 (AP Regulation of Appointments to Public Services & NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 6 Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure Act, 1994) and they should never seek recourse for regularization now or later, on what-so-ever grounds; only the competent unaided/part-time staff (both teaching and non-teaching) of such aided institutions will be continued on outsourcing basis as per the suitability and eligibility of the individuals and as per the requirement which will be identified based on the student strength, workload and viability of the Institution. The salaries for such unaided/part-time staff (both teaching and non-teaching) who are continued on outsourcing basis will be paid as per the Government norms issued from time to time from the fee being collected from the students if the amount so collected is sufficient or their salaries will be paid from the Government funds if the Government decides not to collect any extra fee from the students which is being collected now from the students of unaided courses."
14. This Court observed that the Respondent No.1 after having visualized the facts and circumstances pursuant to the Clause (4)(A)(v) of the G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 and while issuing G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 10.08.2022 under which the Respondent No.7 College was taken over as Government institution wherein Clause(3)(l) specifically observed as extracted hereunder:
(l) All the pending proposals till date for regularization of individuals into grant-in-aid under teaching and non-teaching categories for the institution shall be treated as not feasible, as the cause does not survive any more, except for the posts already covered by interim/final orders of the Hon'ble Courts as on the date of issuance of this Order.
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 7
15. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents that until and unless a undertaking under clause (4)(A)(v) of the G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 is executed, the services of the petitioner neither can be continued nor can be regularized is amounts to violation of interim orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 01.11.2022 and Common order passed by this Court vide W.P.No.27628 of 2016 and batch, dated 18.08.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for continuation of her services at Respondent No.7 College apart from regularization as directed by this Court. Coming to his contentions that mere executive instructions cannot take away the statutory right of the employee for seeking regularization of services and by taking over of the institution by the Government will not affect the status of right of any individual or institution, as such the clause 4(A)(v) of the G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 cannot restrict the right of the petitioner seeking regularization which is a statutory right on part of the petitioner.
16. It is further observed that in similar circumstances even after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.08.2021, the Respondents issued orders for regularization of services of unaided lecturers in Chemistry and Commerce of N.B.K.R. Science & Arts College, NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 8 Vidyanagar, SPSR Nellore District vide G.O.Ms.No.65, Higher Education (C.E.A2) Department, dated 08.11.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.66, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 12.11.2021 subject to result of S.L.P. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of her services as per G.O.Ms.Nos.65 and 66, dated 08.11.2021 and 12.11.2021.
17. It is further observed that the Respondents herein assailed the order passed in W.P.No.27628 of 2016, dated 18.08.2022 by way of W.A.No.915 of 2022. After hearing both the parties, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed on 06.01.2023. While so, the petitioner herein also filed a Contempt Petition vide C.C.No.4847 of 2022 for non compliance of the orders of regularization passed by this Court in W.P.No.27628 of 2016, dated 18.08.2022. Pending Contempt Petition, the Respondents preferred SLP against the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.915 of 2022, dated 06.01.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court stayed the contempt proceedings in C.C.No.4847 of 2022. But there is no interim order against the orders of regularization.
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 9
18. 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.
19. As per Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
20. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors 1 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt.
21. In The District and Sessions Judge vs. The Executive Engineer, R & B2, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"8. One of the well settled principles of law is that it is not only disobedience of the judicial order of the Court or interference with the judicial proceedings, which constitutes Contempt of Court, interference in exercise of administrative power by the Court also is a Contempt of Court."1
AIR 1999 SC 3215 2 1996 (2) ALD Cri 844 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 10
22. The prefatory remarks of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar3, as extracted hereunder would well project the importance of the issue under consideration in this suo motu contempt case:
"1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
At Para Nos. 7 & 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder:
"7. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James Evening Post case, 1742-2 Atk 469) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples"3
AIR 1995 SC 1795 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 11 The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers 1974 A.C. 273 at page 302:
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperiled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
23. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India4, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder: 4
(2012) 1 SCC 273 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 12 "Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government departments are no exception to it."
24. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot 5 , the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as extracted hereunder:
"It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs."
25. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors6, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would 5 (2006) 5 SCC 1 6 2002 CriLJ 1814 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 13 become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and others vs. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others7 held that, punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.
27. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao8, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as extracted hereunder:
"9. Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised by the Courts because it is an extraordinary jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is invoked usually not with the object of punishing a contemnor, but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court.
10. Obedience of the orders of the Courts is foremost and sacred for maintenance of rule of law. Disobedience of the orders strikes at the very roots of rule of law and shakes the 7 AIR 2008 SC 3016 8 Manu/AP/0136/2012 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 14 foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is notin the interest of the judicial system because it will lose the confidence of those who have succeeded in the Courts.
23. An order passed by a Court is sacrosanct and should be implemented. Implementation of an order cannot be refused under any pretext, so long as it remains in force and is not eclipsed or set aside in the hierarchy of remedies. Even if there is some difficulty in implementing the order, parties should approach the Court for appropriate clarifications. Otherwise, it would amount to disobedience to the Court."
28. Admittedly this court granted an interim order dated 01.11.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022 directing the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service for a period of six weeks. Complaining the wilful disobedience on part of the Respondents in not implementing the orders of this Court dated 01.11.2022, the petitioner filed this present Contempt Case.
29. This Court granted an interim order on 01.11.2022 directing the Respondents to continue the services of the petitioner for a period of six weeks. Respondent No.3 after taking note of the same addressed a Memo, dated 28.06.2022 duly communicating the Government Memo, requested the Assistant Commissioner and Correspondent of the College to submit the response as per clause 4(A)(v) of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 wherein the Assistant Commissioner and Correspondent of the College vide Lr.Rc.No.55-22, dated 02.07.2022 stated that:
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 15
a) Smt. B. Maruthi Sree, Un-aided Lecturer is fully aware of the prohibitory clauses of Act No.2 of 1994 and so on as per clause 4(A)(v) of the takeover policy issued vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021. It was reflected on the response letter submitted by individual to the Principal on 30.03.2022.
b) All the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of the College has given their undertaking of willingness with regard to the G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 except Smt. B. Maruthi Sree, Un-aided Lecturer. On repeated reminders, she expressed her inability to sign on the under taking as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Dt.10.08.2021.
c) Smt. B. Maruthi Sree, Un-aided Lecturer is fully aware of G.O.Ms.No.42, HE (CE) Dept Dt.10-08-2021 and she is reluctant to give her response after receiving a copy of Memo.No.120/OP.I/2021, dated 29.06.2022.
30. Further the Respondent No.3 vide letter Rc.No.120/Admn.II/ 2021, dated 12.07.2022, informed the Government that she reluctantly give response to give undertaking in terms of Clause 4(A)(v). The stand of Respondent Nos.1 and 3 is that since Smt. B. Maruthi Sree, unaided lecturer / petitioner herein has not NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 16 given the said undertaking her name was not shown in the list of unaided staff to be continued as outsourcing staff.
31. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 submitted that petitioner has never challenged the conditions of giving an undertaking and policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 as it would affect her pending case of regularization of her services.
32. According to Respondent Nos.1 and 3, the petitioner could be continued as outsourcing employee in the Respondent No.7 College, if her name could have been included in G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 10.08.2022 subject to compliance of Clause 4(A)(v) only. It is submitted that issue of G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 10.08.2022 taking over the College was delayed only for the reason that the petitioner did not given undertaking to continue her services as outsourcing employee. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court to grant an order of continuing her services as outsourcing employee when the condition of giving undertaking in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 subsist. Several unaided lecturers have submitted their undertaking as per clause in G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 in spite of pending writ petitions for regularization or absorption.
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 17
33. It appears that in spite of orders for continuing the petitioner in service as per the orders of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 dated 01.11.2022, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 has not allowed the petitioner, thereby, discontinued her from service on the ground that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are taken is that the petitioner did not give undertaking to continue her service as outsourcing employee, as such she cannot seek indulgence of this Court as an outsourcing employee. Even though the conditions of giving undertaking in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 10.08.2021 is subsisting. As discussed above, Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are unconcerned with the undertaking to be given by the petitioner.
34. Admittedly, the interim order was passed by this Court on 01.11.2022 and vacate stay petition along with counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.3 on 27.01.2023 almost nearly three months from the date of passing of interim orders. Respondent No.1/ the Principal Secretary to Government and Respondent No.3/ the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, willfully flouted the orders passed by this Court knowing well the consequences to be animated for such violation.
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 18
35. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 might have been under impression that they need not obey the law and not required to implement the orders of this Court.
36. As and when this Court in categorical terms directed the Respondents to continue the services of the petitioner for a period of six weeks and later continued from time to time, flouting and disobeying the orders of this Court by not continuing the petitioner in the service is nothing but wilful violation of the orders of this Court. The act of Respondent Nos.1 and 3 by their disorder conduct caused serious damage to the institution of justice.
37. 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 the Court, which is sought to be implemented, as directed by this Court. In fact, the respondent neither preferred writ appeal nor filed any Review petition and also did not file any petition for modification either for exemption of time or for reduction of any liability amount to be paid. Such act of the respondent/contemnor NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 19 is illegal in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah9, wherein, it is held as follows:
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, w3here 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 9 (2007) 7 SCC 689 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 20 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, 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.
NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 21
38. The same view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and others10, where the Court held that, while dealing with an application for contempt, the 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 10 (2004) 7 SCC 261 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 22 application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
39. In The State of Bihar vs. Rani SonabatiKumari 11 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with violation of order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Court, held that, a party proceeded against Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C for disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have willfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions are satisfied viz., (1) that the order was ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of-fact, and where the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions, for the only reason, that ingenuity of Counsel can discover equivocation in the order which is the subject of enforcement. Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3) of C.P.C have a punitive aspect - as is evident 11 AIR 1961 SCC 221 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 23 from the contemnor being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C for execution of a decree for permanent injunction. No doubt the State Government not being a natural person could not be ordered to be detained in civil prison, On the analogy of Corporations; for which special provision is made in Order XXXIX Rule V C.P.C, but beyond that, both when a decree for a permanent injunction is executed and when an order of temporary injunction is enforced the liability of the State Government to be proceeded against appears to us clear.
40. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question as to whether the earlier decision which 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 NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 24 complying with the order, if that was the case, at least Respondent Nos.1 and 3 could have done was to assail correctness of the order/judgment before the Higher Court. But, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 took a stand that the petitioner did not submit any undertaking or the petitioner has never challenged the conditions of giving an undertaking of policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.08.2021 is beyond the scope of the Contempt Case. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to comply with the orders passed by this Court.
41. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the present facts of the case, Respondent Nos.1 and 3, in utter disobedience of the order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022, dated 01.11.2022, consciously violated the order passed by this Court and did not continue the services of the petitioner as directed 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 Nos.1 and 3 cannot be encouraged by this Court, taking lenient view against such person who caused serious damage to the judicial institution itself.
42. For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court Respondent Nos.1 and 3 willfully disobeyed the order of NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 25 this Court dated 01.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.35261 of 2022 and thereby Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are found guilty of Contempt. As such they are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
43. In the result, the contempt case is allowed, directing Respondent No.1 / Sri J.Syamala Rao, Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department and Respondent No.3 / Dr.P. Bhaskara, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-each.
44. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:28.03.2024 Knr
45. After dictating the above order, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 /Contemnors requested this Court to suspend the above order, so as to enable her to prefer an appeal.
46. At request of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 /Contemnors, the above order is suspended for a period of four (04) NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 26 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 Nos.1 and 3 / Contemnors shall surrender before Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 24.04.2024 before 05.00 p.m. to undergo sentence.
____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 28.03.2024 Knr NV,J CC No.5846 of 2022 27 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Contempt Case No.5846 of 2022 28th March, 2024 Knr