TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross judicial indiscipline amounting to contempt of this Court and has knowingly passed an order interdicting implementation of the orders of this Court, challenge to which had failed before the Hon ble Supreme Court as well. We were, therefore, left with no option but to suspend the order passed by the learned Vice Chairman in the taken up writ petition above and now after hearing these matters at length for final disposal, we are left with no alternative but to highlight this judicial indiscipline on the part of the Vice Chairman apart from breach of hierarchical supremacy of Constitutional Court. However, unpleasant it is to record our disapproval of the action of the officers as well as the learned Vice Chairman of the tribunal, in the interest of supremacy of law and prestige of this Court, we are constrained to deal with both aspects in this order. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: (a) The third respondent in the contempt case was appointed as LD Steno in the department of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 06.12.1976 and he was regularized in that post on 08.12.1976 in the forenoon. He was promoted as UD Steno and joined in the promoted post with effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the tribunal on 13.07.1999. The third respondent, however, was promoted temporarily on 16.06.1999 subject to the outcome of the OA and the writ petition. The interim order of suspension of the orders of the tribunal passed by this Court on 13.07.1999 was made absolute on 23.03.2011 and in spite of the said order, the third respondent was continued in the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and further promoted as Deputy Commissioner on 28.05.2007 while the petitioner retired from service as Assistant Commissioner on 31.12.2003. The writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 15.06.2009 declaring that in the absence of amendment to the rules, the third respondent, who held the post of special category stenographer, was not holding any feeder post for considering for promotion as Assistant Commissioner and thereby it was declared that he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner. The third respondent filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP.No.14789 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder: After addressing us for some time, learned senior counsel appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment Pleader for Services II, had adjourned it on 02.07.2010 and 09.07.2010 to enable him to file a counter. On 20.08.2010, the proceedings record as follows: Learned Government Pleader who had earlier filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, now placed additional affidavit of respondent No.2 before the Court wherein reference is made with regard to the interim direction of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4344 of 2010, dated 02.07.2010. Learned Government Pleader says that on account of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal they are not in a position to implement the said order. The said order is dated 2.7.2010 and the respondents ought to have apprised the Tribunal that the memo, dated 17.6.2010 impugned in O.A.No.4344 of 2010 was in fact issued to implement the orders of this Court, which have attained finality. Learned Government Pleader, however, seeks two weeks time to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Tribunal. We therefore adjourn the present contempt case by two weeks to enable the learned Government Pleader to file additional affidavit apprising this Court with regard to further developments. Post after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the orders, the Commissioner of Endowments filed additional affidavit, sworn and signed today i.e. on 24.12.2010, enclosing the proceedings passed by him in Proceedings No.E1/26530/2009, dated 14.12.2010, reverting the 1 st respondent in the writ petition to his original post of Special Category Stenographer by canceling his appointment as Assistant Commissioner vide proceedings in Rc.No.E1/10761/1998, dated 16.06.1999 and his subsequent appointment as Deputy Commissioner in Proceedings No.E1/14934/2007-1, dated 28.05.2007, in view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.13039/1999, dated 15.06.2009. The Commissioner also enclosed the copy of the order passed by the Vice-Chairman, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 15.12.2010 in O.A.No.8887/010 in suspending the said proceedings of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 14.12.2010, by which the promotion of the 1 st respondent in the writ petition was cancelled. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad are reproduced hereunder: 17. Added to that Sri K. Narasimha Murthy, the petitioner in WP No.13039/99, is not in service and he retired in December, 2003. Even if he ul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected by us on 24.12.2010 but, however, Mr. P. Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel, took notice for the third respondent in the contempt case and the fourth respondent in the writ petition and filed counter and vacate stay petition. Similarly, the learned Advocate General took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Assistant Solicitor General took notice and requested time. We had also dispensed with the appearance of the respondents pending further orders. Thereafter, the contempt case was further heard on 01.04.2011 and again on 10.06.2011 and finally heard and reserved on 17.06.2011. 6. Learned Advocate General submits that so far as the implementation of the order in WP.No.13039 of 1999 is concerned, the official respondents were disabled from implementing the order on account of the orders of the tribunal in the first instance in O.A.No.4344 of 2010 and on the second instance on account of the orders of the tribunal in O.A.No.8887 of 2010. He, further, submits that in view of the fact that proceedings were issued by the respondents on 14.12.2010 reverting the third respondent, the order of this Court in WP.No.13039 of 1999 is complied with and the delay is attributa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f suo motu writ petition is not justified, as none of the respondents had questioned the said order of the tribunal dated 15.12.2010. He also submits that the tribunal had jurisdiction to pass a right or wrong order but it cannot be the subject matter of a suo motu writ petition. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the prayer in WP.No.13039 of 1999 is only declaratory in nature without any consequential prayer and as such, the order of reversion of third respondent is wholly unwarranted. 9. Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in the contempt case, submits that the writ petitioner was the senior most Superintendent and undoubtedly, was eligible to be promoted, as per the Rules, as Assistant Commissioner but ignoring his claim, at the instance of the third respondent, the official respondents have promoted the third respondent, though he had no channel of promotion nor was holding any feeder post as per the rules and in spite of the interim orders of this Court dated 13.07.1999 pending the writ petition as well as the final order dated 15.06.2009 passed in the writ petition, the proceedings for implementation of orders of this Court were issued at a high ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested that it may not be just and proper to set aside the order at this length of time. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent in view of facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the nature of the case where the order of the Tribunal was suspended and made absolute on a petition filed by the first respondent and in spite of the said order he managed to get promotion 11. The SLP filed by the third respondent against the said order was dismissed as withdrawn and as such, the order of this Court had attained finality. Once again the representation of the third respondent was rejected by the Government on 17.06.2010 and finally, when this Court was dealing with the contempt case, the official respondents have come up with the proceedings dated 14.12.2010 reverting the third respondent in compliance with the orders of this Court. The said order, which is subject matter of the late O.A.No.8887of 2010, itself states while mentioning the subject of the proceedings that it is issued in implementation of the orders of this Court apart from the fact that the contents of the order categorically show that the said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said OA has any nexus with the implementation of the orders of this Court. Further we had already rejected this contention in our order dated 24.12.2010. 14. During the hearing of these matters, we were of the view that the aforesaid order passed by the then Vice Chairman clearly falls under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and we would be justified in invoking the said provision on the facts and circumstances of the case. For the sake of convenience Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is extracted hereunder: 16. Contempt by Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially. (1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to any observations or remarks made by a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially, regarding a subordinate court in an appeal or revision pending before such Judge, Magistrate or other person a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner in ignorance of the said orders but was further promoted as Deputy Commissioner. The official respondents, who are highly placed officers of the Endowments Department, were expected to be aware of the service rules, which deny any eligibility to the third respondent in the category of special category stenographer for being considered for promotion as Assistant Commissioner. Ignoring the said statutory rules, he was promoted and on that basis further promoted and in spite of the orders of the Court the said action contrary to rules was not rectified. The official respondents are also aware that the SLP filed by the third respondent was dismissed on 17.07.2009 and the Government itself rejected his representation on 17.06.2010. In spite of that the official respondents did not care to implement the orders of this Court and after we entertained the contempt case by issuing notice before admission on 04.06.010, after several adjournments and filing of counter affidavits, six months thereafter the said order dated 14.12.2010 was passed showing as if the official respondents have implemented the orders of this Court. The said belated compliance is thus neither bonafi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
