Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P Sankar vs Shri G Vijay Kumar Ips on 7 March, 2025
1
APHC010253872024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2771/2024
Between:
P Sankar ...PETITIONER
AND
Shri G Vijay Kumar Ips and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARAT BABU
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. G RAJU
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Contempt case has been filed to punish the contemnors/respondents
under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for violation of the orders
and for not implementing the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26566 of 2020 dated
24.08.2022.
2. Heard Sri N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Sri G.Raju, learned counselappearing for the respondents.
2
3. This Court, vide order, dated 24.08.2022, in W.P.No.26566 of 2020,
has disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the same, as under:
“…Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the
case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner promotion to the post of
Additional Superintendent of Police (Civil), as and when promotions are effected, in terms of
G.OMs.No.66. General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 30.01.1991.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in pursuance of the
above orders of this Court, the petitioner herein made representations dated
9.5.2023 and 3.6.2023 to the respondents No.1 and 2 requesting to promote thee
petitioner as Additional Superintendent of Police. But the judgment of this Court
has not been implemented till 14.7.2023. he submits that the 1st respondent
issued G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 31.8.2023 publishing the supplementary panel of
DSOs fit for promotion to the category of Additional Superintendents of Police
(Civil) for the panel year 2022-2023. And in the said list, the petitioner’s name
was shown at Sl.No.4 and it was shown in the remarks column that his promotion
be deferred until termination of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings pending
against him. Likewise, Sri P. Umapathi Varma, Sri RVSN Murthy and Sri T.
Mohan Rao who are shown at Sl.No.1 to 3 respectively carried the same
remarks. He submits that, Sri RVSN Murthy who was shown at Sl.No.2 was
considered for promotion and promotion orders were also issued and posted as
ASP (Intelligence) along with others and that other juniors to the petitioner were
also got promoted. But the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the
respondents till now and they are deliberately and intentionally ignored his
3
candidature for promotion and hence filed the present contempt case. Therefore,
learned counsel requests to pass appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services on instructions
received vide Memo No1931779/Ser.I/A1/2022, dated 25.7.2024, would submit
that, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the matter has been placed before
DPC and DPC has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion.
Accordingly, Government in G.O. Ms No 151 Home (Ser.I) dept., dated 31/8/2023
have issued orders that Sri P. Shankar DSP, is included and promotion be
deferred until termination of the disciplinary/ Criminal proceedings pending
against him in terms of orders issued in the G.O.Ms. No.424, GAD,
Dt.25.05.1976 read with G.O.Ms. No.257, GAD, Dt.10.06.1999. He submits that,
the petitioner has informed that vide GO Ms No 424 General Administration
(Ser.C) Dept., dated 25.05.1976 has given the following orders:
“In case of officers coming under category (iii) the DPC or their authority
should consider whether such an officer would have been recommended for
promotion, if the officer had his conduct not been under enquiry trial or
investigation, and make its recommendations and the rank to be assigned to him
in the promotion list, in such cases the Departmental Promotion Committee may
make a specific recommendation that their promotion should be deferred until
after the termination of the disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution.
6. In the event of there being an officer whose promotion has been
recommended to be deferred, the vacancy that could have gone to the officer
should be filled only on a purely temporary basis by the next person in the
approved list of candidates for promotion. If the officer concerned is completely
exonerated he should be promoted to the post filled on a temporary basis,
restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with restoring him
his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with retrospective effect”.
4
7. Further, Government have also issued guidelines regarding
appointment by promotion/transfer to higher categories of employees who are
facing disciplinary case in GO Ms No 66 GA(Ser.C) Dept., dated 30.01.1991 and
further instructions in GO Ms No 257 GA(Ser.C) Dept., dated 30.01.1999. In this
connection, it is informed that keeping in view of the recommendations of the
Departmental Promotion Committee as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court
dated 24.08.2022 in WP No 26566/2022 filed by the petitioner herein,
Government have issued orders Including the name of Sri P.Shankar DSP (Civil)
in the panel year 2022-2023 at Roster point No 15 and promotion be deferred
until termination of the disciplinary/Criminal proceedings pending against him in
terms of orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.424, GAD, Dt.25.05.1976 read with
G.O.Ms. No.257, GAD, Dt.10.06.1999 vide G.O Ms No 151 Home (Ser.1)
Department dated 31.08.2023.In view of the above, learned Government Pleader
for Services, requested to apprise the above factual position and the present
contempt case may be closed
8. Learned Government Pleader further has furnished a latest copy of
proceedings vide Memo No.1931779/Ser.I/A1/2022, dated 13.02.2023 stating
that, as stated by the petitioner that RVSN Murthy who is similarly situated
person has got promotion, but in this regard, it is to inform that Sri RVSN Murthy,
DSP ACB Was facing disciplinary case on the delinquency of certain irregularities
and the Screening committee met on 28.08.2023 for preparation of panel of DSP
(Civil) fit for promotion to the category of Addl.SP(Civil) for the panel year 2022-
23 have included and promotion is deferred until termination of the
disciplinary/criminal proceedings pending against him in terms of orders issued In
5
the G.O.Ms. No.424, GAD, Dt.25.05.1976 read with G.O.Ms. No.257, GAD,
Dt.10.06.1999. Accordingly, Government have G.O.Ms. No. 151, Home(Ser.1)
Dept., dtd: 31.08.2023. Issued orders vide G.O.Rt.no.1590 Home (Ser.I)
Department, dated 29.12.2023. Later, Government vide G.O.Ms. No.927, Home
(SC.A) Dept., dtd: 28.08.2023 have dropped further action against Sri RVSN
Murthy, (1) DSP ACB. Government have issued orders promoting Sri RVSN
Murthy, (f) DSP ACB as Addl SP (Civil) in the panel year 2022-23 on par with his
juniors vide G.O.Rt. No.986, Home(Ser.1) Dept., dtd: 07.09.2023 only after
dropping departmental action. Further, Government have issued promotion and
posting orders to Sri RVSN Murthy, Addl SP as Addi. SP, Intelligence among
others vide G.O.Rt. No. 1590, Home(Ser.1) Dept., dtd: 29.12.2023.
9. In this connection, it is submitted that Government have given
promotion and posting to Sir RVSN Murthy as Addl SP in the panel year 2022-
2023 after dropping of departmental action against him. Whereas in respect of Sri
P.Sankar, DSP (retd) the Government have included him in the panel year 2022-
2023 and promotion be deferred until termination of the disciplinary/Criminal
proceedings pending against him, but the Criminal proceedings are not yet
concluded against Sri P.Sankar, DSP (retd). In view of the above, the
Government Pleader for Services is requested to appraise the above factual
position to this Hon’ble High Court and see that the CC No 2771/2024 in WP No
26566/2022 filed by Sri P. Shankar DSP (Civil) may be closed.
6
10. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India1, the Division Bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court held as extracted hereunder:
“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.”
11. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot 2, 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.”
12. In T. Girija Kumari vs. K. Venkateswara Rao3, 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 foundation on which the judicial system rests. Tolerance to disobedience is
not in 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.”
1
(2012) 1 SCC 273
2
(2006) 5 SCC 1
3
AIR 2008 SC 3016
7
13. In the case of M. Santhi Vs. Mr. Pradeep Yadav and Another 4
wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court held as follows:
“20. The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery of
justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these dual interests,
unwarranted interference with administration of justice must be prevented. The
power to punish for contempt is conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly,
that the Courts may be armed with the power to enforce their orders,
Secondly, they may be able to punish obstruction to the administration of
justice. To ensure these objective, there are also constitutional provisions
dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts Act. Under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of record is a Court, the records
of which are admitted to be evidentiary value and not to be questioned when
produced before any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for
contempt as its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is
that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the contempt
powers of Courts of record would have been preserved. However the High
Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in mind Section 20 of Contempt of
Courts Act”.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court has clearly specified the purpose and
object in filing the Contempt Case as cited supra.
14. I must express my inability to agree. It is incumbent upon the
respondents, more particularly, those who are holding senior position in
Government, to ensure that the Orders of this Court are complied with
promptitude, and within the time stipulated for its compliance. Any difficulty which
they may have in complying with the order of this Court would require them to
invoke this Court jurisdiction seeking extension of time to comply with the orders.
15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court observed
that, as stated by the respondents, they have complied with the orders of this
Court in letter and spirit manner, but it is observed that the respondents have not
4
Contempt Petition No. 377 of 2018, dated 11.04.2018 Madras High Court
8
complied with the orders of this Court in a letter and spirit manner, which
amounts to contempt of Courts Act.
16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view to grant four (04) weeks
time to the respondents to implement the directions of this Court dated
24.08.2022 passed in WP No.26566 of 2022, from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
17. With the above observation, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_____________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -03-2025 Gvl 9 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.C. No.2771 of 2024 Date : 07.03.2025 Gvl